{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, February 11, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cunningham.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and\nMcNamara.\nAlso present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney\nFarimah Faz, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason; Supervising Planner Doug Garrison,\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer; Obaid Khan, Public Works.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of November 13, 2007 (not available).\nThese minutes will be considered on February 25, 2008.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of December 10, 2007.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that under Item 6 (Future Agendas), the last paragraph\non page 1 should be changed to read, \"In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy\nAshcraft when staff estimated a green building ordinance to be put on the books in\nAlameda. \"\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to that time, she recalled that there was\na\ndiscussion about staff being able to implement a straightforward application process,\nand would like that section of the tape to be reviewed and inserted into the minutes.\nMr. Thomas recalled that conversation, and noted that the project submittal checklist for\nsustainable elements had been discussed.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that on page 9, Strategy 3 discussed the lack of space\nfor larger functions in the City, and should be changed to read, \"She was concerned that\nthe large civic events like the annual fundraiser for the boys and girls club have to meet\nin Oakland because there were not large enough facilities to accommodate them in\nAlameda.\"\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as\namended.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of January 14, 2008.\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 2, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the bottom of page 3 read, \"Vice President Kohlstrand\nnoted that it was important to keep the guiding nature of the General Plan Amendment in\nmind throughout the process.\" She recalled that there was a discussion about whether the\nPlanning Board should be very prescriptive in the guidelines, and she stated that if they were\nto do that, that the General Plan was the appropriate document to do it in, since it set the\nguiding principles for the City.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that in the middle of page 6, the following language should\nbe changed to read, \"Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the second sentence of the last\nitem on page 4 should introduce the idea of shared parking, in addition to multilevel\nparking\"\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that page 7, paragraph 7, should be changed to read, \"She\nwished to avoid using the streets blocks as a circulation aisle for the parking lot...\"\nBoard Member Lynch advised that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, \"The\nUniversity Village was an outstanding shopping experience that has a mix of very small\nand large stores.\" He added that there was a two-story Crate & Barrel store in that\ncenter.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as\namended.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0\nAbsent: 0; Abstain - 1 (Cunningham). The motion passed.\nd.\nMinutes for the meeting of January 28, 2008.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that with respect to the resolution for Item 9\n(referencing Item 2.5.u.3) on page 11, the Planning Board had discussed adding language\nreferring to control of the location of utility trash recycling enclosures being located out\nof the public path, which had been mentioned in the previous minutes; he would like that\nwording included in the resolution.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that on page 15 (Climate Protection Task Force)\nshould be changed to read, \"Mr. Thomas presented an update of the last Board meeting.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that they divided the recommendations into two tiers.\nThe first tier had five items as listed below, and the remaining items were consolidated\ninto Tier 2.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 3, should be changed to read,\n\"Because staff was unable to make the findings for a variance and design review\napproval, he recommended the Planning Board deny the proposed variance application.'\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the language in the middle of page 7 should be\nchanged to read, \"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that some of the nicest homes she\nhas seen in applicants' neighborhood had some kind of renovation..\n\"\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 3, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 7, paragraph 5, should be changed to read,\n\"She supported people being able to improve their properties, and believed there should\nbe some reward for undertaking a project such as this.\"\nPresident Cook noted that with respect to the language at the top of page 7, \"President\nCook suggested that the dividing line between a boat house and an actual dwelling\n\"\nshe had intended to state that the boat house in this case was larger than many dwellings\nin Alameda, and so perhaps the square footage should be examined more carefully. She\nnoted there was a fine line between a boat house and a residence.\nPresident Cook noted that the language halfway down page 8 should be changed to read,\n\"She believed the issue of height was more critical than the number of floors, and it\noccurred to the applicants to stay within the height limits\". In addition, the following\nchange should be made, \"She noted that the issues of density and the public right to the\nwaterfront were important issues to be looked at if Zoning Code amendments are\nconsidered.\"\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as\namended.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cook noted that a request had been received to remove Item 8-A from the Consent\nCalendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. She noted that two requests to go first had\nalso been received. She suggested that the items be heard in the following order: 9-B, 9-A,\n8-A, and that Staff Communications be heard at the end of the meeting.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-B.\nBroadway/Jackson Phase II. A presentation and update on work being\ncompleted by the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, California Department of\nTransportation, and Alameda County Transportation Improvement Agency\n(ACTIA) to improve automobile, transit, and pedestrian connections and mobility\nbetween the Webster and Posey Tubes and the I-880 Freeway. Barbara Hawkins,\nAlameda Public Works Department, will make the presentation. The Planning\nBoard will take no action on this item at this meeting. This presentation is for\ninformational purposes only. (AT/BH)\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that she would recuse herself from this item because the\nAlameda County Transportation Improvement Authority was one of her clients, and her\nbusiness partner worked on this project. She stepped down from the dais.\nMs. Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer, summarized the staff report, and displayed the\nvarious options on the overhead screen.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 4, "text": "There were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nWith respect to the slide depicting the preferred option, Board Member Lynch inquired\nhow the project would be funded, Ms. Hawkins replied that it had started with S.T.I.P.\nfunds, which paid for the CalTrans environmental work and the design. Measure B\nfunding paid for the feasibility study and the current PSR.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch whether MTC was involved with any\nof the funding decisions, Ms. Hawkins replied that all funding went first through the\nCMA for the County, then MTC for all the counties, and finally to the CTC. The City of\nOakland was also involved as an active partner, originally by the Planning branch and\nrecently by the engineers.\nBoard Member Lynch strongly urged the organizations working on this project to send a\nletter to the City of Oakland, and he believed it was reprehensible that one branch of their\ncity government was not aware or supportive of what another branch was doing of a\nproject this nature. He noted that to think an applicant would move forward in their\nPlanning Department with entitlements of such a major project showed a lack of\nleadership from their most senior elected individuals, as well as their Planning\nDepartment. He would like to have a response with respect to that's situation, and he\nbelieved that from a planning perspective, Alameda tried to encourage the ability to work\ntogether. As a taxpayer, he found the situation reprehensible and noted that there were\nsignificant public dollars at work. He believed that the City of Oakland's objectives with\nrespect to this planning process must be made clear to the public. Otherwise, he would\nnot support moving forward if the City of Oakland was not clear about their objective.\nMs. Hawkins noted that at the joint meeting between the Alameda and Oakland\nCouncilmembers, Oakland Public Works and Planning had attended, and that everyone\nwas supportive of the project. She added that they were aware that it was critical that this\nproject remain open. She suggested that the City of Alameda send a letter stating its\nbelief that it be continued, to ensure that the differences were being communicated. She\nwas not sure whether the new planner had read the feasibility study, which was being\nrefined.\nBoard Member Lynch encouraged the City Attorney's office in Oakland to offer its\nthoughts, because he believed that it was not a takings case, but the applicant may\nsuggest that it was. He noted that he would not support any motion moving forward, if\nthe City of Oakland's Mayor's Office, City Attorney, and Planning Director were not in\nfavor of this; he believed these decision-making bodies must be involved in an\nentitlements case.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed frustration that so many options had been\neliminated. She inquired whether it would be possible to have a written mutual agreement\nof understanding, and whether it would be necessary to have a stronger instrument than\nmeetings between Councilmembers. She believed that the Tube backups were a regional\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 5, "text": "problem, and that Oakland held considerable influence in the entitlement process. She\nnoted that there were limited options remaining.\nMs. Faiz replied that a cooperative agreement was a possibility, and added that the City\nAttorney's offices in Alameda and Oakland were not involved in policy decisions; they\nonly gave legal advice.\nMs. Hawkins agreed that a cooperative agreement would be a good idea, and that she and\nMr. Thomas may be able to work with the City Attorney's office in that regard.\nNo action was taken.\nVice President Kohlstrand rejoined the Planning Board on the dais following this item.\n9-A. PLN07-1022 (Master Plan Amendment) - David Hidalgo Architects, Inc. for\nWestwood Financial Group - 801 through 951 Marina Village Parkway. The\napplicant requests a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan\nto allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25% office use (a\nmaximum of 31,070 square feet), and to allow the future addition of a 5,000\nsquare foot building pad, an 800 square foot kiosk, and a 500 square foot kiosk.\nThe shopping center at build out will be 130,729 square feet. The site is located\nwithin an M-X, Mixed-Use Zoning District. (CE)\nMs. Eliason summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding staff's sense of the\nkinds of retail businesses that were needed in the kiosks, Ms. Eliason replied that the\nsmall kiosks could house a small coffee stand or another business that would serve the\noffice development. She noted that they did not know what the square footage would be\nyet. She noted that these locations would not support drive-through businesses.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether there would be any\nconcerns relating to the proximity to the day care center, Ms. Eliason noted that the uses\nwould be examined at a final development plan or design review stage. At that point, the\nBoard would have a better idea of the uses.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the location would be appropriate\nfor fast food, Ms. Eliason replied that while it would not be appropriate for drive-through\nuses, she could not say whether a fast food use would be placed there.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether a restriction against\nfast food uses could be placed on this use, Ms. Eliason replied that the percentage of fast\nfood uses could be restricted, or that there would be no additional fast food uses. She\nnoted that \"fast food\" must be defined in that case, and she did not believe that \"fast\nfood\" was defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Board member Cunningham noted that the\nWebster Street guidelines may provide some direction regarding a definition of fast food,\nand asked staff to provide further definition of the types of office spaces for the project.\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 6, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported some flexibility for the manager of\nthe shopping center, but was troubled by the proposal in that the development originally\nwas allowed to have 10,000 square feet of office. She noted that was eliminated, but that\nthe Board did not have any history on that action. She expressed concern that 17,000\nsquare feet of office had been added, but she understood that no office was allowed under\nthe current regulations. She was also concerned about the increase to 25% for office, and\nnoted that there was not much discussion regarding that expansion. She would like more\ninformation regarding what would be allowed in the shopping center, and would like to\nlimit any further drive-through uses.\nBoard member McNamara noted that she drove around the site, and while she did not\nhave a problem with the 5,000-square-foot pad site, the current site for the two proposed\nkiosks was the site for the only green grass on the site. She would like that space to be a\nmore pedestrian-friendly environment, and believed it was too intensive a use for that\nspecific area. She would like that area to remain as a green space.\nBoard Member Lynch noted that the amount and type of retail, as well as the amount and\ntype of office space was important, as was the grade of office space. He believed this was\nan interesting site for retail, but did not consider this to be an ideal site for retail. He\nbelieved this space was evolving from one use to the other.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had gone to that shopping center, and that\nshe did not consider it to be optimal for retail because it resembled a glorified strip mall.\nShe noted that a shopper may be tempted to drive from one end to the other. She recalled\nthat a cigarette store had been located there, which she did not consider it to be a\ndesirable use. She was comfortable increasing the percentage of office space from 17% to\n25%. She would like to see uses that enliven the walkways, and noted that this may not\nbe the kind of place where the Board's energies should be focused on increasing the retail\nbecause there were some exciting possibilities. She would like to see more attention paid\nto Webster Street.\nPresident Cook noted that the location of retail in the Citywide retail strategy was very\nimportant. She had used the center before, and found that she was usually glad to be done\ndriving around the area. She noted that many people used the back area of the center to\nget around quickly. She noted that there were many planning issues embedded in it, and\nshe was hesitant to say yes to it. She agreed with Board member McNamara's concerns\nabout the lack of green space.\nMr. Thomas noted that staff recommended approval of this project. He added that the\nCity Council had commissioned a series of retail studies. The studies found that there was\ncapacity and demand for between 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail on the west end.\nThe Council then said that Alameda Landing would be limited to 300,000 square feet. He\nnoted that the City wished to preserve some of that capacity for Webster Street, which\nwas a priority for the City, as was Alameda Point and Alameda Landing. He recalled that\na business license for a medical office had been turned down; prior to that, the City had\nbeen approving the business licenses until an intern discovered the amendment from\n1984. He noted that there had been demand for office space, and that there had been\napplications for use permits to put office space in residential zoning districts. He noted\nthat there had been a demand for the service-related medical offices. He noted that the\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 7, "text": "last page of the resolution contained the amendment for the Master Plan, and added that it\ncould be amended to read \"no drive-throughs,\" which would be amenable to the\napplicant.\nBoard Member Lynch would support that addition, and did not see this as a retail site. He\nnoted that this might be a good location for a dental or urgent care medical office, which\nwas a growing demand. He would support the amendment, and would not want to tamper\nwith the plan because the market has determined what has happened on this site over the\nyears.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft requested that staff address Board member McNamara's\nconcerns about the green space. Mr. Thomas noted that the Board had the option to allow\nthe expansion of the center up to a certain amount of square feet, leaving the decision\nabout the actual location of kiosks up to the development plan approval, similar to\nAlameda Landing. He noted that this was a Master Plan amendment, and that the details\nof the landscaping, parking and other specific issues may be examined at that time. He\nnoted that the Board may specify that the existing amount of landscaped area should be\nmaintained in all future configurations.\nPresident Cook noted that she understood the flexibility argument, but did not see why it\nshould be expanded. Mr. Thomas noted that the priority for the applicant at this time\nwould be to resolve the percentage of office use first; the second priority was the\nexpansion.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. David O'Donegal, O'Donegal Architects, project architect, noted that the applicant\npurchased this property in 2004, understanding that the site was a thriving shopping\ncenter at that time. He noted that there had been some turnover and vacancies since that\ntime. He echoed Board Member Lynch's comment in that they were seeking service-type\nusers, such as real estate and medical/dental outpatient uses that had to be turned down\nbecause of the current situation. He noted that in October 2007, he and staff had reviewed\nthe history of this property, and identified some options and opportunities. His goal was\nto have at least 25% office use for the center, which they needed to be able to function\nand reduce the vacancy of approximately 3,400 square feet. They had leases they wished\nto pursue to occupy those spaces. He noted that retail did not work in the back portion of\nthe center, and requested that the office use be permitted.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the current parking was 5 per 1,000, and\nsuggested reducing it to increase green space. Mr. O \"Donegal agreed with that\nsuggestion, and added that they had not experienced any parking problems.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the parking ratio be reduced.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the additional language include \"medical,\ndental or professional offices, and other service-oriented businesses.\"\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 8, "text": "Board member Cunningham noted that the portion of the Code submitted by staff\nidentified professional nature offices as including accountants, architects, artists,\nattorneys, authors, doctors, dentists, and engineers.\nPresident Cook inquired about the appropriateness of medical clinics, medical labs, rest\nhomes and sanitariums.\nMs. Eliason advised that all the permitted uses listed under (b) would be included.\nPresident Cook noted that list was too broad for her preference, and inquired whether\nthere was existing language that has worked in the past. Mr. Thomas noted that staff\ncould return with revised language at another meeting. He noted that the resolution could\nbe amended to read, \"The AP (Administrative Professional) District, with the exception\nof or not including...' and then delete D through H (medical laboratories through\nsanitarium).\nBoard member Cunningham would like people to be encouraged to get out and use the\ncenter.\nPresident Cook noted that the Board seemed to agree on B-1(a) through L, and B-2(a)\nthrough D.\nBoard Member Lynch would not delete (F) (radiology), and noted that everything was\ndone by computer now.\nPresident Cook suggested that B, E, G and H should be included as conditionally\npermitted uses. The Board generally agreed.\nPresident Cook was not in favor of the expansion at this point.\nBoard Member Lynch did not object to the expansion.\nPresident Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Master\nPlan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allow the Marina Village\nShopping Center to permit up to 25% office use (a maximum of 31,070 square feet), to\nincluded the permitted uses as discussed under AP Zoning District, with the conditionally\npermitted exceptions of B, E, G and H.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed.\nBoard Member Lynch moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution to approve the future\naddition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an 800 square foot kiosk, and a 500 square\nfoot kiosk. The shopping center at build out will be 130,729 square feet. The following\nmodifications would be included:\n1.\nThe current amount of landscaping would be preserved; and\n2.\nNo drive-through uses would be permitted.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3.\nNoes: 3 (Cook, Kohlstrand, McNamara) Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion failed.\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 9, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n8-A.\nLarge Format Retail Store Zoning Text Amendments - Applicant - City of\nAlameda. The Planning Board will consider proposed zoning text amendments\nto the Alameda Municipal Code related to large format retail stores and the\nlocation of retail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments\ninclude a definition of large format retail store and proposed provisions requiring\na use permit for different types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The\nproposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning\ndistricts and mixed use zoning districts. (DG) Continued from January 28,\n2008.\nMr. Garrison presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that at the last hearing, Michael Corbitt had raised some\nissues, and inquired whether he had a chance to look at the revised language. Mr.\nGarrison replied that he had, and that the email received from Mr. Corbitt the previous\nFriday stated that it had been reviewed by their management and attorney, and that they\nwere in agreement with the current language.\nMr. Garrison noted that under the existing entitlements at South Shore, there were\nlimitations regarding the number of large stores that would be allowed by square feet. He\nnoted that additions such as new loading docks would trigger a design review, and staff\nwould still look at it to determine whether it would affect traffic flow in the shopping\ncenter.\nBoard Member Lynch suggested that this section be reworded for clarity.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the applicant must work\nthrough the Planned Development structure, and that if they combined their space to\nexceed 30,000 square feet, they must come before the Planning Board, Mr. Thomas\nconfirmed that was correct. He suggested that the large format language remain as written\nby Mr. Garrison, and that a commercial PD would be automatically triggered. He\nsuggested the following language: \"Conversion of existing multitenant retail space to a\nsingle retail space greater than 30,000 square feet.\"\nBoard Member Lynch believed that language was close, but was concerned that a tenant\nmay build up to 29,000 square feet to avoid the trigger.\nBoard member McNamara noted that 2-B should be changed to \"30,000 square feet.\"\nMr. Garrison suggested additional language added to the end of the text discussed by Mr.\nThomas, which stated, \"This shall require a PDA,\" that would state \"unless specifically\nallowed in an approved planned development.\" He believed there should be more\ncomprehensive planning up front, and believed that should be addressed the first time\nthrough.\nBoard Member Lynch agreed with Mr. Garrison's assessment.\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 10, "text": "Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve\nproposed zoning text amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code related to large format\nretail stores and the location of retail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text\namendments include a definition of large format retail store and proposed provisions\nrequiring a use permit for different types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The\nproposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and\nmixed use zoning districts. The resolution shall be amended as detailed by staff.\nBoard Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes:\n0\nAbsent: 0. The motion passed.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\na. Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items.\nBoard Member Lynch inquired about the outcome for the Harbor Bay Village ruling. Ms.\nFaiz replied that the judge ruled that the settlement agreement did not mean the project\nhad been approved, and that it must return to the Planning Board and go through the\nprocess.\nMr. Thomas noted that if the General Plan Zoning Amendment is approved, the housing\ncould proceed under the terms of the original development agreement.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch what would happen if the Planning\nBoard did not certify the EIR, Mr. Thomas replied that the Planning Board was not the\nfinal decision-making body, and that the recommendation to the City Council would be to\nnot certify.\nBoard Member Lynch inquired about possible administrative remedies if the City\nCouncil decided not to certify the EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that if the Council determined\nit could not certify the EIR, they would have to identify the issue with the EIR. It would\nbe incumbent upon the City to work to rectify that information. He noted that more\nanalysis would be required. There would be a certain point where the Council would have\nto determine the EIR was sufficient, at which point the merits of the proposal would be\ndiscussed.\nBoard Member Lynch suggested that questions along those lines would be directed to the\nBoard from the public. He noted that petitions had been circulating, and that it was\nimportant to be aware of the procedural issues.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the EIR certification, Mr. Thomas\nconfirmed that an EIR may be certified, but the project could be denied.\nRegarding the smog check item, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the description\nof the application was not specific enough in the report, and that the name of the business\nand further detail would be helpful to the public.\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 11, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there were some exciting prospects of improving\nthe stretch of Park Street from Lincoln Avenue to the Park Street Bridge, making it a\nmore welcoming, attractive entrance to the City. She would have liked to have seen this\nitem come before the Planning Board, and would like the City to pay special attention to\nthat section of Park Street.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the City's choices,\nMr. Thomas replied that the use permit for the auto use could be denied, which would not\nallow them to expand, and that the expansion would be completely inside the building.\nLandscaping along the perimeter would be added, and the sidewalk would be rebuilt\naround that half of the block, closing up curb cuts to add on-street parking.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they were currently out of\ncompliance with their use permit, Mr. Thomas replied that they were not out of\ncompliance. They were out of compliance with the sign program, and a condition was\nadded in that regard.\nVice President Kohlstrand requested that any future changes or expansions of the auto-\noriented uses be brought before the Planning Board.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Bill Smith discussed the 282-unit townhome project prospectus, as well as the Base\nprocedure.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\n11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nPresident Cook noted that there had been no further meetings, and that the Task Force has\nbeen postponed for a short while. Mr. Thomas noted that the developer had requested an\nextension in order to move the internal milestones. The development concept was to be\npresented in March, and the EIR was to start in May, and the developer requested a six-\nmonth extension.\n11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember McNamara)\nBoard member McNamara noted there was nothing to report.\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-02-11", "page": 12, "text": "11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand)\nVice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last\nreport.\n11-D. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham)\nBoard member Cunningham noted that there had been no further meetings since his last\nreport. The report was presented to City Council the previous week, and they had asked\nstaff to reconsider the format of the next committee. The action plan had been approved.\nMr. Thomas noted that the Council would consider whether to set up a permanent Board\nor Commission for Climate Protection, and that it would have to be reconstituted with\ndifferent members.\nMr. Thomas added that Mayor Johnson had not yet made a nomination for a replacement\nPlanning Board member.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 12 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf"}