{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, August 24, 2009\n1.\nCONVENE:\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft, Board\nmembers Autorino, Cook, Cunningham, Lynch, and Zuppan.\nABSENT:\nNone.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of July 27, 2009\nPresident Kohlstrand noted that the minutes should be\ncorrected to reflect the information requests by the Planning\nBoard. Motion as amended 5-0-2. (Autorino & Zuppan\nabstained)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nItem 8-B was moved from Consent to Regular Agenda.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nStaff commented that the Fire Department was available to provide assistance, as the\nelevator was out of operation.\n6-A Future Agendas\nStaff presented the upcoming projects to come before the Planning Board.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nStaff reported that on August 4, 2009 a Use Permit and Design Review application for a\nproject at 1208 Lincoln was approved for two residential units on the second-floor of an\nexisting commercial structure.\nBoard member Lynch asked how the Green Building Ordinance would be introduced to the\ncommunity and recommended that staff contact the pertinent green building organizations\nto obtain technical assistance as well as education materials for the community.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the building community would get the\nopportunity to review the proposed ordinance in a workshop format.\nPresident Kohlstrand requested that the work-program for the fiscal year be included on the\nupcoming project list.\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nBarbara Kerr spoke to item 8-A (continued) and stated that the project does not currently\ncomply with the approvals granted in the past. She requested that any future plans be\nmade to conform to the General Plan and the Municipal Code.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is\nreceived from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker\nslip for that item.\n8-A\nUse Permit - PLN09-0184 - Applicant - Chengben \"Peter\" Wang for Encinal\nTerminals - A request to approve an amendment of the existing use permit UP-94\n06 to allow for the outdoor storage, refurbishing, and sale and lease of shipping\ncontainers, outdoor storage of boats, watercraft, automobiles, RV's, chassis,\ntrailers, automotive equipment, vehicles, buses, trucks, mobile homes, construction\nequipment and materials for business, homes, commercial and/or household goods\nand ancillary uses including office or retail functions from September 26, 2009\nthrough August 31, 2015. Applicant requested continuance to the September\n28, 2009 Planning Board Meeting.\nRezoning - PLN09-0222- Applicant - City of Alameda. A rezoning of property\ncurrently occupied by ConGlobal Industries from M-2, General Industrial\n(Manufacturing) District, to M-X Mixed Use Planned Development District to\nconform to the General Plan Mixed Use Designation. Applicant requested\ncontinuance to the September 28, 2009 Planning Board Meeting.\nZoning Text Amendment - PLN09-0243- M-X Zoning District Regulations -\nApplicant: City of Alameda. A proposed text amendment to the M-X Mixed Use\nPlanned Development District zoning regulations to allow for application for interim\nuse permits prior to approval of a master plan for the property under certain\nconditions. Applicant requested continuance to the September 28, 2009\nPlanning Board Meeting.\nMotioned by Board member Cunningham/seconded by Vice-President Ezzy\nAshcraft to continue item 8-A to the meeting of September 28, 2009.\nApproved 7-0\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-B\nConformance Rezonings - Applicant: City of Alameda: PLN09-0110 - 1913\nSherman Street (APN 074-0906-031-08) A rezoning of a 1.9 acre property from\nM-1-PD, Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) Planned Development District, to\nR-2-PD, Two Family Residence Planned Development District.\nStaff presented the agenda report.\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 3, "text": "Barbara Kerr corrected the staff report and listed the General Plan policies that direct the\nfuture street access to the site from Sherman Street and not Bay Street. She stated that\nshe does not recommend the Planned Development overlay at this time, as the future\ndevelopment is still uncertain and speculative.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft corrected the resolution's date and was supportive of Barbara\nKerr's comments pertaining to street access.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked staff why the Planned Development overlay was necessary.\nStaff explained the flexibility in site design that is possible with a PD overlay designation.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft motioned/Board member Cook seconded approval.\nApproved 7-0.\n9-A\n2009-2010 Election of Planning Board Officers. The Planning Board will elect a\nnew President and Vice President for the upcoming year, as required by the\nPlanning Board By-Laws.\nBoard member Cook thanked President Kohlstrand for her excellent work as the\nPresident of the Board and recommended Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft to the\nposition of President. Motioned by Board member Cook / seconded by Board\nMember Lynch. Approved 7-0.\nBoard member Lynch motioned/seconded by Board member Cunningham to elect\nBoard member Autorino to the position of Vice-Presidnet. Approved 7-0.\n9-B\nUse Permit - PLN08-0479 - 1051 Pacific Marina - Charlie Zawde. Proposed\nbanquet and catering facility in an existing building that proposes to operate\nbetween the hours of 9 am - 10 pm, Sunday through Thursday, and 9 am to 11:30\npm, Friday and Saturday.\nStaff addressed President Kohlstrand's question regarding the difference between the\nhours of operation as proposed by the applicant and staff's recommendation for shorter\nhours of operation. Staff then proceeded with the staff report outlining the parking study as\nsubmitted by the applicant's consultant and answered Planning Board members' questions\nraised at the previous meeting with the following answers: 1) Owner shall control the\nalcohol license: The applicant will not obtain their own license, but would only provide the\nspace for the client or caterer who holds a liquor license to provide for the beverages and\nfood; 2) Require parking lot clean-up after events: condition related to this was included in\nthe resolution; 3) Limitations on the number and conditions for events: the applicant is\nagreeable to conditions for events, but staff is uncertain if the applicant is amenable to\nlimiting the number of events; 4) Non-compliance activities: Non-permitted work had since\nbeen granted building permits with applicant paying code enforcement penalties, staff\nconfirmed events had occurred without use permit approval; and 5) Similar banquet facility\nconditions of approval: Bayside Banquet facility's parking requirements were met through\nexisting conditions; the Brazilian Room (Oakland) has a ratio of one security officer present\nper 50 guests between the ages of 16 and 21; the Oakland Yacht Club's approval\ncontained no conditions limiting the number of events, number of guests, or specifying\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 4, "text": "parking requirements.\nBoard member Cook stated that crafting final conditions at the dais are difficult, and asked\nstaff to evaluate the community's proposed conditions of approval. Staff commented that\nthe community and the applicant should be heard one more time, to evaluate all proposed\nconditions and to develop a final list from that.\nBoard member Lynch requested a clarification of the resolutions from staff, applicant, and\nthe community.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft requested information on the noise and parking study.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked whether the State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) liquor\nlicense could be held by the caterer instead of the owner of the premises. Staff stated that\ncaterers can obtain licenses and the property owner could proceed without holding the ABC\nlicense.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if clients could bring their own alcoholic beverages to the\npremises. Staff noted it understood this would be possible.\nBoard member Lynch motioned/ Board member Cunningham seconded to limit public\ntestimony to three minutes each. Approved 7-0.\nPresident Kohlstrand opened the public comment period.\nT. Sullivan, the applicant's representative, stated that the applicant has made a significant\neffort after the last meetings to accommodate the public's comments about noise and\nparking concerns. He stated that while the applicant generally agrees to staff's proposed\nconditions of approval, there are concerns with proposed conditions #4, #7, #13, and #16.\nConditions #7 and #16, requiring parking attendants and security personnel at every event,\nare unduly burdensome. He commented that these requirements should kick in when 150\nor more attendees per event are present. Condition #13, requiring a 10 pm closing time at\nall events, would make the facility infeasible. He stated that the other facilities of a similar\nnature are not restricted in such a manner. Condition #4, prohibition of the sale of alcoholic\nbeverages, is difficult to enforce. Although the applicant does not want to sell alcohol on\nsite, there may be caterers who are required to sell the beverages pursuant to client's\nrequests.\nB. Warner, financial manager at Point Marina Vista, stated that an agreement has been\nreached between the adjacent property management, Legacy Partners, to utilize shared\nparking. He added, that similar businesses do not have the conditions proposed for Point\nMarina Vista and he asked that the Use Permit be approved to permit the operation of the\nbusiness, which is similar to businesses permitted by right in the MX zoning.\nC. Zawde, property manager, stated that his company is committed to operating a first\nclass facility that can be a good neighbor. He stated that the noise concerns can be\nmitigated, as noted in the noise study and that parking can be provided. He requested that\nthe hours of operations be up to 11:30pm on Friday and Saturday be granted to make the\nproject financially feasible and that condition #4 be altered to require security personnel for\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 5, "text": "events that exceed 150 attendees.\nM. Hershey, Oakland Yacht Club Member, stated that the Oakland Yacht Club does have\nconditions of approval that it complies with. In addition, he wanted to ensure that the City\nhas a program that would monitor compliance with the conditions of approval, if the project\nwas approved.\nB. Paulsen, Oakland Yacht Club Member, spoke about noise and vehicle parking security\nconcerns, but focused on how the property owner would comply with the conditions of\napproval and how they would be enforced.\nT. Cronin, Marina View Towers resident, stated that the proposed use is not equivalent to\nthe former restaurant use. He is gravely concerned about compliance with California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The\nproposed use would not be a good neighbor. He recommended that the Planning Board\nimpose a performance and liability bond to protect the interests of the local residents and\nthe City of Alameda.\nL. Cardoza, Oakland Yacht Club Member, recommends denial of the application as the\nconditions of approval are not adequate to ensure compliance and monitoring.\nN. Shemick, Marina Village resident, stated that the applicant has negated a good faith\neffort with the neighborhood, based on the previous business activities at the site that were\nnon-compliant. She also requested that the project be denied, as it would likely cause many\ndisruptions to the neighborhood, and result in frequent calls to the Alameda Police\nDepartment that is already overburdened due to staff reductions.\nM. Keen, Marina Village resident, requested denial of the project, due to the fact that a\nbanquet facility would create nuisances, and noise.\nN. Bartlett, Marina Village resident, reiterated her concerns that the applicant would not be\nable to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval.\nT. Charron, Marina Village resident and Pacific Marina Yacht Club, was discontented with\nthe fact that no meeting with the applicant had been convened outside of the Planning\nBoard hearings. He outlined the deficiencies in the parking analysis and then clarified the\nconditions of operation at the Pacific Marina Yacht Club. He is opposed to a facility that\nallows trring-your-own-booze\" type of events. He requested that a mediator be brought into\nthe discussion, who could facilitate and reach a reasonable set of conditions for both sides.\nD. Carroll Marina Village resident, opposes the proposal on the basis that the banquet\nfacility's management would not be a responsible or good neighbor. He also questions the\nadequacy of the parking study.\nB. Jarvis, Marina Village resident, proposed that instead of allowing the banquet facility,\nthe City should allow deviation from development standards and permit the construction of\nseveral high-end condominiums, which would recoup the applicant's costs and be a\nsuitable neighbor to existing residential development.\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 6, "text": "President Kohlstrand closed the public comment period.\nThe Board asked that the applicant respond to the question of advertising and scheduling\nof upcoming events. The applicant stated that the website is not theirs and that no event\nwas scheduled for September 6, 2009.\nBoard member Cook asked for clarification on the applicant's interpretation of 'bring-your-\nown-beverages' and why the applicant is requesting that condition #4 be changed. The\napplicant stated that no alcohol will be sold through the banquet's business operation, but\nthat alcoholic sales would be strictly conducted by caterers.\nBoard member Lynch asked for clarification on the deposit for staff and material for Use\nPermits. Staff explained how staff time billed towards the deposit on processing the\napplication. Board member Lynch suggested that a facilitator be selected to resolve the\nitems that are contentious, paid for by the applicant or billed against the project. He\nrejected the idea to developing conditions of approval at the dais and suggested that the\nBoard only review the project upon agreement of the different parties.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft disagreed with the need to find a mediator and with the\nstatement that the facility would not be ADA compliant. She would like to see a condition of\napproval requiring that the applicant obtain an ABC liquor license, as it would generate a\nvested interest by the property owner in maintaining good relationships with neighbors, as\ntheir liquor license would be at stake. She also recommended that condition #4 be revised\nto require security when an event has 100 or more attendees. In addition, she stated that\nenforcement of conditions is possible. She stated that a restaurant and a banquet facility\nare somewhat similar uses, but that the restaurant is more intensive from a parking need\nstandpoint as they are open for business seven days a week, while this venue would\noperate once or twice a week.\nBoard member Autorino asked the applicant why building activity and events were\nconducted without proper permits. The applicant's representative stated that the property\nowner was unaware of the need to obtain a Use Permit to hold events. Board member\nAutorino asked how the business operations would be conducted and the community would\nbe able to contact someone in the case of issues at events. The applicant's representative\nstated that the applicant would be available at all times for any comments by the\nneighborhood. Board member Autorino then asked why it was necessary to increase the\nsecurity-guest ratio to 150 instead of 50. The representative stated that it was an arbitrary\nnumber, but they were flexible. Board member Autorino asked for clarification on the\nparking study and whether areas were left out in the parking need count as stated in the\npublic testimony. Charlie Abrams, Traffic Engineer, explained the parking analysis and\nstated that the analysis was complete and did calculate parking needs for berths in the\nmarina.\nObaid Khan, City of Alameda Civil Engineer, spoke about the review process and analysis.\nHe recommended that if there are more than 130 to 150 attendees, valet parking or\nattendant parking should be required.\nBoard member Autorino wanted it in the record that the applicant's analysis stated on rare\nevents, parking demand would exceed capacity, while the City's analysis revealed that\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 7, "text": "parking would exceed capacity on weekends.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft requested that Condition #8 be revised that the applicant\n\"shall secure the shared parking agreement\", instead of making a \"good faith effort\".\nBoard member Cook noted that she did her own informal analysis of the site, and noted\nthat a portion of the parking lot was not maintained or striped. She asked who was\nresponsible for maintaining the parking lot. Mr. Khan stated that maintenance of the\nparking lot was up to the property owners that utilized the lot.\nBoard member Cunningham asked how the Board would like to proceed and how to\nresolve the issues that are still pending. He supported the property owner's right to develop\nand utilize the site.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked the Board to come to agreement on how to proceed. Either\ndeny the project, or continue the project to another meeting to give the applicant time to\nmeet with the neighbors and develop a set of acceptable conditions.\nBoard member Cook stated that there are too many unresolved issues, but that she would\nnot be able to approve the project if there was a vote on the item this evening.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that he felt that it was the board's responsibility to come\nto a decision instead of sending the project back to be revised yet again.\nBoard member Autorino expressed that he supported the application and wanted to move\nforward with its consideration.\nBoard member Zuppan favored a reuse of the site, but would not be able to approve it at\nthis time, as she still had questions about the project.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that she is not able to approve the project at this time, given\nthe applicant's inability to achieve a resolution with concerned parties.\nBoard member Zuppan asked whether there was air-conditioning on the site. The applicant\naffirmed this. She commented that while without air-conditioning, attendees would likely\nleave doors open once the facility became too hot, which would result in significant noise\nintrusion into the neighborhood. She asked how the applicant expects to address that\nissue. The applicant stated that there are automatic closers on doors. On-site staff would\nclose the doors when amplified music is played.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that a vestibule at the building may help mitigate noise\nintrusion into the neighborhood.\nBoard member Zuppan asked the applicant to confirm the number of events that are\nplanned per year. The applicant agreed to limit the number of events until the use permit is\nup for its first review, at which point the number may be increased to what was originally\nrequested.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the applicant had secured an overflow parking agreement.\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 8, "text": "The applicant stated it had not as of yet, but a neighboring commercial property owner,\nLegacy Partners, had verbally agreed to an agreement for overflow parking on an as\nneeded basis. She also asked how the applicant proposes to inform the community when a\nlarge event is scheduled. The applicant stated that all business owners and other interested\nparties would be informed prior to a large event taking place.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if the applicant would consider prohibiting the sale of tickets\nto the general public for events. The applicant agreed to this, but only if non-profit\norganizations would be exempted from this prohibition.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to proceed and work at arriving at a\ndecision, so that a successful business that could contribute and increase the economic\nvitality of the City could be established and favored working on a list of conditions that\nwould minimize impacts to the neighborhood and allow the property owner to operate a\nsuccessful banquet facility.\nFollowing a discussion evaluating the merits and details of a lengthy list of conditions,\nrecommended by staff, applicant, and concerned citizens, the Board developed the\nfollowing list of conditions:\n1. The applicant shall not operate the facility until a valid business license from the City\nof Alameda has been obtained.\n2. The applicant shall not use, or permit any caterers and/or clients to use the kitchen\nfacilities unless a valid permit to operate such kitchen has been issued to applicant from\nthe Alameda County Environmental Health Department.\n3. Alcoholic beverages at this facility may only be served in conjunction with events and\nthen only by caterers that hold a valid and proper class of Alcoholic Beverage Control\nlicense issued by the State of California. Patrons, guests, attendees, staff, and owners\nare not allowed to consume any alcoholic beverages outside, except for in the enclosed\npatio area.\n4. Any sale of alcoholic beverages shall only be done in conjunction with events and\nthen only by caterers that hold a valid and proper class of Alcoholic Beverage Control\nlicense issued by the State of California. No facility owner, facility owner staff, patron,\nguest, or attendee is allowed to bring or serve any alcoholic beverage at any event held\nat this facility.\n5. A maximum of 250 individual guests shall be permitted for any single event held at\nthis facility.\n6. Shared parking with the common parking area of Pacific Marina is operated on a first-\ncome, first-serve basis. The property is controlled under a valid Agreement of\nReciprocal Easements, Covenants, and Restrictions (dated 09/26/1989) and the\nfacility at 1051 Pacific Marina must adhere to all rules and regulations of the Pacific\nMarina common parking. The applicant/facility shall not block or reserve parking\nspaces for event guests.\n7. Parking attendants shall be uniformed and employed to monitor and direct parking\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 9, "text": "for all events with more than 135 attendees and must be on duty for at least the first two\nhours of the event.\n8. Applicant shall coordinate with other uses at Pacific Marina for events with more than\n135 attendees.\n9. Before any event with more than 135 attendees, applicant must secure a shared\nparking agreement with a neighboring commercial property parking lot owner on a form\napproved by the City Attorney.\n10. All events held at the facility shall comply with the City of Alameda's Noise\nOrdinance pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Alameda Municipal Code.\n11. No amplified sound equipment shall be used outside the facility. All doors and\nwindows of the facility must remain closed when public address systems are used or\nwhen amplified sound systems are in operation, bands are playing, or recorded music\nor video is being operated inside the facility.\n12. All events held at the facility shall be private and not open to the general public.\n13. Outdoor activities conducted in association with events shall be limited to the deck\nand lawn area enclosed by a fence on the parking lot side of the building. No music\namplified or un-amplified or use of public address systems is allowed in this area or in\nany other outside areas of the property.\n14. All events shall end by 10 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and\nSaturday.\n15. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all patrons quietly vacate the parking\nlots by 10:30 p.m., Sunday - Thursday and 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and\nmust notify all clients, guests, and employees that the site is located next to residential\nneighborhoods and that all patrons must be respectful of residents of these\nneighborhoods. No alcoholic consumption, disruptive, noise, commotion, or\nunnecessary vehicle noise is allowed in the common Parking Area of Pacific Marina nor\nin the Alameda Marina City Park which abuts this facility.\n16. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all clients, caterers, staff, owners and\nguests for each event observe the posted speed limits in the Pacific Marina Parking\narea and on adjacent streets.\n17. Security guards shall be provided at events in the following ratios to insure\ncompliance of patrons, caterers, and staff with all mandates of this resolution.\nBetween 100 - 200 attendees - Minimum of one security guard\nGreater than 200 attendees - Minimum of two security guards\nSecurity services and its staff shall be bonded, trained to current industry standards,\nuniformed, and visible during all events held at this facility. Security guards must be on\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 10, "text": "duty at the facility and parking areas before any event commences and be employed to\nstay on duty during all events and remain on duty until the last patron leaves the\ncommon parking area.\n18. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that patrons and employees do not park\nvehicles in private residential areas.\n19. The applicant shall be responsible for the clean up of debris in the parking lots and\non the Pacific Marina site generated by any events held at the facility.\n20. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all permanent employees,\ncontractors, hired part-time or hourly staff, security personnel, caterers, and entertainers\nadhere to these conditions of approval and shall ensure compliance of same to these\nconditions of approval.\n21. The on-site manager or representative of the property owner shall be on-site during\nevents and maintain a list of the conditions of this use permit along with the contact\ninformation of the owner or owner's representative, so that issues related to events can\nbe quickly addressed.\n22. This Conditional Use Permit PLN08-0479 will be reviewed by the Alameda Planning\nBoard every six months for a period of one year from the date of approval.\n23. Planning staff shall mail a notice indicating the date, time, and location of each six\nmonth review of this use permit to all property owners, tenants, and homeowner\nassociations within 500 feet of the project site so interested parties are notified and may\nto attend these meetings.\n24. Revocation: This Conditional Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the\nPlanning Board pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-21.3d should the\nPlanning Board determine that: 1) the use or conditions under which it is being operated\nor maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to\nproperty or improvements in the vicinity; 2) the property is operated or maintained so as\nto constitute a public nuisance; or 3) the use is operated in violation of the conditions of\nthe Conditional Use Permit.\n25. Expiration: The Use Permit approval shall expire two (2) years after the date of\napproval or by August 24, 2011 unless the applicant has started operation of the\nbanquet facility in reliance on this use permit. The applicant may apply for a time\nextension, not to exceed two (2) years. An extension request will be subject to approval\nby the Planning Board and must be filed prior to the date of expiration.\n26. HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable\nto the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its Redevelopment\nAgency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and\nemployees from any claim, action, or proceeding (including legal costs and attorney's\nfee) against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City\nPlanning Board and their respective agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside,\nvoid or annul, an approval by the City of Alameda, the Planning and Building\nDepartment, Alameda City Planning Board, the City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-08-24", "page": 11, "text": "or City Council relating to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any\nclaim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperated in such defense. The City\nmay elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or\nproceeding.\nBoard member Cunningham motioned/seconded by Board member Board member\nAutorino. Motion passed 6-0-1 subject to the above conditions of approval.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nMunicipal Code Amendment - City of Alameda. A Municipal Code Amendment\nto amend the Alameda Municipal Codes Sections 30-36 and 30-37 related to\nDesign Review. (review only)\nBoard member Cunningham requested a red lined version of the amendment\nbe made available to the Board\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or make a\nbrief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral to staff or\nother resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a\nsubsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to place a\nrequest to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-08-24.pdf"}