{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, January 14, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Ezzy Ashcraft.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and McNamara.\nBoard Member Cunningham was absent from roll call.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faiz.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMeeting of November 13, 2007 (Not available)\nb.\nMeeting of November 26, 2007.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 3, under the description of 9-A, the\nspelling of ProLogis was misspelled as ProLogic.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 6, paragraph 2, should be changed to read,\n\"He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding a parking easier for the shopper.'\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the second to last paragraph on page 6 should be\nchanged to read, \"He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be being\nable to get out easily with the traffic flows.\"\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 7, paragraph 1, read, \"The Master Plan now\nstates that for a particular use, the maximum should be 4.5, but shared parking for\nmultiple uses, the maximum shall be 4.5 per 1000.\" She did not believe this sentence was\nexplanatory, and requested that some clarification be added.\nMember McNamara noted that on page 10, the approval date for the minutes were listed\nas December 10, 2007, and should be January 14, 2008.\nPresident Cook noted that the summary paragraph after Mr. Berry spoke read, \"Mr. Steve\nKendrick displayed the changes and noted that they retained the concept of the\ncontinuous island along the east-west drive aisle, but to provide head-in parking, moving\nthe drive aisle back to keep the circulation within the parking pod.\" She had difficulty\npicturing what had been approved, and requested that a smaller version of that section be\nattached so the Board could visualize it before the final approval was made.\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 2, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed, and noted that the approval was based on what was\nprojected on the overhead screen. She inquired whether the visual could be included.\nMr. Thomas noted that the new drawing was created the next day and attached to the\nfinal resolution.\nThe minutes of November 26, 2007, will be considered at the meeting of January 28,\n2008.\nc.\nMeeting of December 10, 2007 (Not available)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nFuture Agendas\nMr. Thomas noted that staff had received a letter of resignation from Board member\nMariani, effective immediately.\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\nc.\nMiscellaneous\nVice President Kohlstrand noted there had been some discussion at the Fernside\nhomeowners association meeting recently, and inquired about the Council's stance and\npossible action on the Harbor Bay Isle GPA/EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that the Council had\nnot taken any action at all on the proposal for the rezoning and the General Plan\nAmendment. They did settle a legal dispute about a technical issue regarding the existing\ndevelopment agreement. He added that the City had been challenged by one of the\nopponents on the validity of the legal settlement.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired when the theater would open.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the committee was waiting for a date certain, but\nanticipated it would be in February or March.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 3, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nCity 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.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report.\nPresident Cook noted that page 1 identified community centers as being planned for\nAlameda Landing, Alameda Point and the Del Monte Building in the Northern Waterfront\narea. She inquired who planned the Del Monte Building, and noted that it connoted approval\nof a concept that the Planning Board had not yet seen. Mr. Thomas replied that was a valid\nconcern.\nVice President Kohlstrand inquired whether the City wanted any more community shopping\ncenters such as South Shore and Marina Village. She believed that while the uses were\ndesired, the configuration would be more appropriate as a main street type of development.\nShe did not believe that shopping centers full of private streets and big blocks were very\nfriendly to pedestrians, and that the City should move away from them as much as possible.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that the last sentence in the third paragraph, \"Types of Retail\nDistricts: Main Street Business Districts,\" read: \"These districts are pedestrian-oriented\ndistricts with historical patterns of development that limit building form, and the ability of\nindividual businesses to provide on-site parking.\" He did not understand the last section\nabout parking, and while that may be the City's desire, he inquired which businesses\ncontained within the Main Street business district provided on-street parking. Mr. Thomas\nnoted that it should read, ..and limit the ability of individual businesses to provide on-\nstreet parking.\"\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that outlets such as Pottery Barn could be offered in an\nurban setting, rather than the traditional suburban setting.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there was a potential for retail at the three areas\nthat were mentioned, and suggested adding a paragraph at the end of the section stating\nthat \"additional retail districts may be located at Alameda Landing and Alameda Point.'\nPresident Cook believed that terminology was important, and that a community shopping\ncenter connoted a suburban shopping malls that are normally reached by car.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that it was important to keep the guiding nature of the\nGeneral Plan Amendment in mind throughout the process.\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 4, "text": "President Cook expressed concern that another shopping center was being brought forth\nwhere the pedestrian was not being put first. She did not believe the name \"lifestyle center\"\nshould be used, but suggested that a new style of community shopping might be included.\nBoard Member Lynch believed the document should be clear.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft re the meaning of \"competitively\npriced foods,\" Board Member Lynch responded that competitively priced foods are created\nby competition, created by competition and more than one source of foods.\nIn response to a comment by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding Section 2.5, Mr.\nThomas replied that until 2004, there had been a concern that a great deal of sales tax had\nbeen leaked to neighboring communities. This affected the ability to fund services, and also\naffected the transportation situation as people drove off the island to go shopping. Board\nmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether that should be included in the document.\nBoard member McNamara suggested expanding 2.5(a) to read, \"Services [space] to enable\nAlameda to realize its full retail sales potential by minimizing the amount of sales leakage to\nneighboring community.\"\nMr. Thomas suggested providing explanatory text to state that this section addressed sales\nleakage. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed.\nRegarding 2.5(c), \"discourage offices from ground floor occupancy,\" Board member\nMcNamara inquired whether mortgage companies and banks were retail uses. Mr. Thomas\nnoted that the City did permit offices, provided they obtain a use permit. He added that real\nestates offices, etc., provided an interesting view from the sidewalk, and that they did not\nraise the concern raised by this policy.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had been disappointed to see the Comerica\nBank use go into the building with many beautiful windows, which would have invited a\nrestaurant.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to 2.5(e), \"Maintain full-service\ncommunity shopping centers serving all sectors of the City,\" she suggested substituting the\nphrase \"community service opportunities.\" She noted that the community benefited from\nand enjoyed the uses within the districts.\nRegarding 2.5(d), Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there should be a way to prevent\nSafeway from continuing to park the large trailer trucks in the parking lot where the cars are\nsupposed to park. She understood that supermarket needed to receive large deliveries several\ntimes per day, but did not believe the trucks should take up eight parking spaces each,\nespecially during the construction period.\nMr. Thomas suggested that that issue be addressed in the development plan approvals for\nAlameda Towne Centre, but not in this document.\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 5, "text": "Board member McNamara noted that regarding 2.5(k), she would like clarification of the\nrelevance of the wording \"to minimize automobile trips associated with the redevelopment\nof Alameda Point.'\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(g) read, \"To encourage retention and addition\nof housing in the Main Street business districts.. and inquired how the policy would be\nfollowed.\nBoard Member Lynch liked the wording as it stood because it was clear and precise.\nPresident Cook suggested removing the word \"new\" and replace \"community shopping\ncenters\" with the updated language to be determined.\nMr. Thomas noted that this policy could be rewritten to say, \"encourage retention and\naddition of housing in retail areas,\" and strike the references to the different types of centers.\nHe noted that the 1990 General Plan made a point of not saying \"in community shopping\ncenters,\" and believed that reflected how community attitudes about mixed use development\nhave changed in the last 15 years.\nPresident Cook agreed, particularly in getting people out of their cars.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(j) read, \"Support, encourage and foster new\nretail development to serve the west end of Alameda.\" She noted that since the studies had\nbeen done in 2003, there had been a lot of growth in the number of residences, and inquired\nwhether a survey had been done to hear from the residents of that area. She inquired what\nthe need was for grocery uses in Bayport, and what other shopping needs they had.\nBoard member McNamara noted that she had been approached by several people, inquiring\nabout what was happening in the West End. She inquired about the plan, and noted that it\nwas not on the same levels as Park Street, and did not believe it was receiving the same City\nattention as Park Street. She questioned why (h) and (i) should be distinguished from each\nother.\nVice President Kohlstrand believed that Park Street was more of a downtown for Alameda,\nwhich was not to diminish Webster Steet, which served more of a neighborhood base; Park\nStreet drew more people from around the City.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that as he read 2.5(h), he was encouraged and enlightened, and\nvalued the property in its current state, as well as what it could become.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that 2.5(i), he felt limited in his thought because of the\nwording, and suggested that 2.5(i) could be bolstered by the kind of language in 2.5(h)\nregarding vacated spaces.\nPresident Cook suggested receiving input from WABA.\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 6, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that with respect to 2.5(s), \"Amend Alameda Municipal\nCode to reduce off-street parking requirements,\" she wrote \"Yes!\"\nVice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments.\nMr. Thomas noted that the use \"consider amending\" acknowledged that nothing could be\namended until the public hearings were held on the specific amendment.\nPresident Cook noted that the parking garage is close to opening, and she believed that the\nCity should be able to give some relief to allow more restaurant uses downtown.\nBoard member McNamara inquired about the language \"which exceeds recommendation of\nMetropolitan Transportation. and whether the specifics of those recommendations was 5\nper 1,000. Mr. Thomas replied that it was closer to 3 or 4 per 1,000. Board member\nMcNamara inquired whether that should be included. Mr. Thomas replied that the\nexplanatory text detailed the need and reason for it; staff would return with specific parking\nrecommendations as part of the ongoing study. He noted that the General Plan policy stated\nthat it was the City's goal to reduce the parking requirements, and that the decision-marking\nof the reductions should be left to the actual Zoning Amendment, which will be brought\nback in the future.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that the second sentence of the last item of page 4 should\nintroduce the idea of shared parking, in addition to multimodal parking.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 2.5(m), \"Improve Public Transit Service to\nShopping Areas,\" the next sentence read, \"Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus\nshelters \" She believed those were two different things, and that unless it referred to City\ntransportation, the City did not have much influence over AC Transit funding decisions. She\nnoted that AC Transit has been cutting services. She believed that a possible use of the\nincreased parking meter fees on Park Street should go not only into the General Fund, but\nuses that support the shopping on Park and Webster Street such as a shopper shuttle.\nRegarding 2.5(n)(v), Board member McNamara noted that the second sentence read, \"If\nlarge quantities of off-street parking are necessary to serve the development should be\nprovided in structures located behind or beside the retail mix,\" which seemed to apply to\nAlameda Landing. She inquired whether in future design developments, what happened in\nAlameda Landing would not happen with respect to parking behind the use. Mr. Thomas\nnoted that was his effort to verbalize the Board members' wishes, and that it would not\naffect Alameda Landing. He noted that it would affect new construction and new retail\nfacilities. He noted that the word \"discourage\" was used because Alameda Point was big,\nwith a lot of land on the site, with large and difficult financial constraints. Staff wished to\nconvey the intent that the City did not want large parking fields, which should be screened\nfrom view if they did exist.\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 7, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand noted that when there was a lot of land with low density\ndevelopment, it was a fact of economics that there would not be a lot of structured parking.\nShe noted that because of that tradeoff, some of the City's lofty goals may not be realized.\nMr. Thomas noted that it would not be wise to include policies that were not possible to\nachieve, but it would be desirable to include policies as goals to move toward.\nPresident Cook noted that the proposed goal stated that if it cannot be achieved, it should be\nprovided in structures located behind or beside the retail or mixed use buildings, and would\nlike to further discourage \"beside,\" which she believed interfered with the streetscape and\npedestrian streetscape. She suggested the wording read, .located behind, or if there\nis\nno\nalternative, beside the retail or mixed use building\" to identify a hierarchy of preferences as\na goal, rather than a prescriptive.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that University Village in Seattle was an outstanding shopping\nexperience that had very small stores. He noted that the parking was woven through the\ndevelopment, with some parking beside or behind the stores, with walking paths and paths\nthroughout. He noted that could not be possible if President Cook's wording was included.\nBoard member McNamara suggested the following change to the sentence she previously\nreferenced: \"discourage construction of new large parking areas in order to facilitate\npedestrian, bicycle and other modes..\n\"\nMr. Thomas noted that he would reword the entire policy.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that 2.5(x) contained some key issues, and acknowledged\nMr. Thomas' effort to distill the Board's concerns. She suggested specifically stating that\nthere should be sidewalks on both sides of the streets, that the number of curb cuts should be\nlimited, and that the existing block pattern in Alameda should be replicated. She suggested\nlimiting the block length to 150 to 250 feet might be too small. She recalled that the Board\nhad grappled with the public versus private streets, which was a financial issue as well as a\ndesign issue. She believed it was very important to keep streets in the public realm. She\nsuggested limiting the number of curb cuts and parking area so the uses must provide all the\ncirculation on-site. She wished to avoid using the blocks as a circulation aisle for the parking\nlot.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that Santana Row in San Jose has become a promenade, and\nthat parking is no longer allowed on the street.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were two different kinds of streets: Park Street, which had a lot\nof through traffic and acted as a buffer for pedestrians; and Santana Row, which was more\nof a cul de sac. He cited the portion of Fifth Street north of Mitchell as a similar situation.\nVice President Kohlstrand suggested that on-street parking be provided unless there were\ncertain small-scale pedestrian retail environments where it may not be appropriate.\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 8, "text": "Board Member Lynch cautioned against creating a policy that would constrain the creativity\nof a future use. Mr. Thomas believed that staff could fine-tune the language to acknowledge\nthe different circumstances.\nVice President Kohlstrand suggested going up to 400 feet for the block lengths.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Santana Row had a lot of sidewalk dining, and that\nwas not compatible with a lot of auto traffic.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that with respect to 2.5(x)(d), \"Street Trees and\nLandscaping,\" she would like to insert wording from the Landscaping Guidelines. She\nwould like to include a reference to new construction and design that is energy efficient.\nPresident Cook noted that with respect to 2.5(y), the same language referring to parking\nbeing located behind or beside the building appeared, and suggested that the previous\nchanges be applied to this section as well; she would like the new language about sidewalk\ndining and curb cuts to be included as well.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that Bay Street in Emeryville had changed; where cars could\ndrive through near the Elephant Bar, that street had been blocked off to allow more\npedestrian activity and sidewalk dining.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Karen Bey thanked staff for the document, and believed it was good City policy to have\na clear vision on what the community desired in terms of retail. She noted that cities have\nbeen taking the lead in terms of development goals. She strongly believed that in the effort\nto encourage development, cities should be flexible but should also have written policy. She\ncited the Cities of Ojai and San Francisco as upholding new ordinances regulating new retail\nestablishments.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nNo action was taken.\n9-B.\nApprove a Change in the Format for a Future Public Forum Regarding the\nHousing Element and Measure A.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board\napprove a change to the format which would allow staff to expand the time available for\nthe panel discussions and eliminate the small group discussions.\nMr. Thomas noted that several letters had been received on this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Joseph Woodard submitted a speaker slip but was not longer in attendance to speak.\nMs. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, noted that she had sent an email to the Board. She had\nthought the purpose of the forum was an evaluation by experts and professionals as to the\nimpact of Measure A over the past 35 years. In reading the staff report, she believed that\nwas what was intended, and believed this should be a very objective analysis. Homes\nsupported the recommendation that there be no small groups at this time due to the\ninformational and analytical nature of the forum. She did not believe there would be\nenough time to process the information at one time. She hoped this forum would not\nbecome a pro-and-con discussion of whether Measure A should exist. She believed there\nshould be a discussion of the impact of Measure A on education under \"Diversity of\nHousing/Housing Mix.'\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cook inquired about the professional speakers that had committed to the forum.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff was working towards a February 2 meeting date, and that\nshould be published in the next few days.\nBoard Member Lynch inquired why there were as many as six people to a panel, as he\nhad seen in some workshops in the past.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that consultant David Early recommended that\nsmall breakout groups be used to maximize the opportunity for public participation,\nbecause not everyone feels comfortable speaking before a large group. She recalled that\nthe SunCal Alameda Point workshop was a good example of that format working\nextremely well. She believed the forum should be held in a place where it could be\ntelevised.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she spoke with Cathy Woodbury the previous week,\nand understood that more time was needed for the forum. She had inquired about the\nconfirmed panel members, and was noted that there was a reason for setting the deadline\nin the first place. She noted that this had been planned since Summer 2007, and the\npanels had not been confirmed. She was concerned that the Planning Director had not\nmade more progress at this point. She would like the forum to be a good one, and was\nreluctant to extend the time, and believed it was unrealistic to confirm February 2 at this\npoint. She was frustrated by the fact that it had taken so long to see so little progress.\nBoard member McNamara believed that the initial timeframe should be adhered to, and\nto move forward with it as best as they can. She suggested contacting alternative\npanelists. She believed the breakout sessions were secondary to the panel discussions,\nand emphasize that community education was the primary objective.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether more time would provide a better\nopportunities for obtaining a better venue and more panelists.\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that Board member McNamara's description was in line with the\nPlanning Director's goals, which included retaining the original date. He noted that it was\ncrucial for the panelists to be familiar with Measure A. He believed that a panel on land\nuse could be pulled together to address land use.\nPresident Cook would like to include a discussion of the connection between housing and\ntransportation.\nPresident Cook recalled a discussion during the summer during which Ms. Woodbury\nbelieved there would be some resources available for this forum and the panelists, as long\nas it was in the context of the Housing Element. She noted that these were busy people\nwhose expertise would be in demand, and she believed it would be good to offer them at\nleast a stipend. She was concerned that this forum had been placed on the back burner,\nand while she supported a February 2 date, she would rather have the forum be strong\nand well-organized.\nMr. Thomas replied that the other option was to pick an alternate date, and to request the\nfull panel to be named for the January 28 Planning Board meeting; following that, the\nforum could be advertised.\nBoard Member Lynch tended to come down on the side of an organized and well-planned\nevent, given the amount of energy and time. He believed that would yield a more positive\nevent, and would like to give the organization process more time. He suggested thinking\nabout the site in a more positive way as it related to people's experience from the event.\nHe noted that two of the speakers had been keynote speakers at national conferences, and\nbelieved that it would best to offer the speakers at least a stipend. He would not object to\ndelaying the forum if it was consistent with what the panel thinks it should produce.\nVice President Kohlstrand did not want another delay, which she found frustrating, and\nwould like the Planning Director to speak to the Planning Board about this forum.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft believed it would be important to have a high-quality\nforum, given the amount of time it had taken to get to this point. By the January 28\nmeeting, she would like to know the moderator and four panelists for the first panel, as\nwell as a facility. She would be comfortable with four speakers instead of six.\nPresident Cook agreed with the level of frustration expressed by the Board members,\nparticularly in being asked to make a decision without all the facts. She was ambivalent\nabout the small groups, and noted that the public comment period could be moved to the\nnext Planning Board meeting.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the breakout sessions were scheduled to be 45\nminutes long, and that the open forum would be an hour and a half. She suggested\nincorporating the breakout groups into the public session, summarizing them, and then\ngoing into public comment. Her main concern was having solid, informed speakers and\nan adequate place to have the gathering.\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 11, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the forum would be\ntelevised, Mr. Thomas replied that it would be videotaped. He was unsure whether it\ncould be televised live unless it was held in Council Chambers. He believed that taping\nthe forum for later broadcast would be the best course.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 28,\n2008, with the following conditions:\n1. Staff will provide a list of between four to six panelists for each panel, and\nthat each panel will include professionals from the various disciplines\ndescribed in the proposed speaker list;\n2. A date and a venue for the forum will have been determined, with sufficient\ntime to publicly notice the meeting;\n3. A decision will be made as to whether or not the breakout sessions will occur;\n4. The Planning Director is requested to attend the meeting; and\n5. The subject of speaker stipends will be addressed.\nMr. Thomas noted that because February 16 was a long weekend, that February 23 may\nbe the best alternative date.\nVice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5.\nAbsent: 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Thomas noted that he had responded to a citizen email sent through the City website\nregarding Measure A.\nPresident Cook noted that she had received a full packet about a national planning\nconference, and the League of California Cities conference in March 2008. She inquired\nabout APA membership for the Planning Board members, which were available for $60\nper Planning Board member. She noted that membership in the California chapter was\nrequired, and was $30 annually. She believed it was important for the Planning Board\nmembers to have access to this information.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she was already a member of APA.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that he was already a member of APA, and subscribed to the\njournals as well.\nMr. Thomas noted that he would check into the Board memberships.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-01-14", "page": 12, "text": "Mr. Thomas noted that he would insert the PowerPoint presentation in the packet at the\nnext meeting, and that the next meeting would be held January 30, 2008.\nPresident Cook noted that it was a well-attended session, and that the general issues for\nthe community were identified.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMr. Thomas noted that there was not been a recent meeting, and added that Board\nmember McNamara was the alternative Planning Board member; Ms. Mariani had\nresigned.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Vice President\nKohlstrand).\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings 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 the report.\nMr. Thomas reported that the Task Force approved the plan with some relatively minor\namendments, and that it would go to the City Council on February 5, 2008, for final report.\nThe Task Force also recommended that the City Council establish a standing commission to\naddress these issues.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether a green building ordinance\nwould follow, Mr. Thomas believed that was a strong possibility.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:55 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/2008-01-14.pdf"}