{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 1, "text": "COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nOctober 23, 2006\nPRESENT: Berger, Bunker, Longley-Cook, Chair Cooney, Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore\nABSENT/EXCUSED: Fort, Kirola\nGUESTS: Stefany Pittman, City Manager Debra Kurita\nCity Manager Debra Kurita introduced herself to the Commission, gave a background of her career\nand education, and thanked the Commissioners for volunteering their time. Chair Ed Cooney and\nthe Commissioners then expressed their concerns, especially the lack of pedestrian access along the\nexisting Oak Street sidewalk at the proposed parking garage site. The Commissioners suggested\nmaking Oak Street a one-way street or removal of parking on the west side temporarily in order to\naccommodate pedestrians adjacent to the construction site. The Secretary informed the Commission\nthat traffic implications to the neighboring streets and turning restrictions onto Central Avenue and\nSanta Clara Avenue from Oak Street would need to be assessed. The Secretary informed the\nCommission that the City has hired a new Assistant Risk Manager, Lucretia Akil, who will also be\nthe City's ADA coordinator and that their concerns should be presented to her.\nMINUTES: The minutes of September 25, 2006 were approved with the following corrections: 1)\nNew Business Item #3, Press Release - change \"met\" to \"meet\", and 2) New Business, Item #4,\nAlameda Hospital Health Fair, change \"Commissioner's Adrienne Longley-Cook and Audrey Lord-\nHausman\nwill contact to \"Commissioner's Adrienne Longley-Cook and Toby Berger will staff\nthe table at the event\".\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\nNEW BUSINESS:\n1. Internet Service Rates and Speed.\nTabled because interested Alameda resident Ms. Marylouise Lambert was not in attendance\nat the meeting.\n2. Audible Traffic Signals\nTabled because interested Alameda resident Ms. Marylouise Lambert was not in attendance\nat the meeting.\n3. In-pavement Lights at Various Crosswalk Locations\nThe proposed secretary discussed the in-pavement crosswalk light construction plans with", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nOctober 23,2006\n2006 Minutes\nPage 2\nCommission. The proposed locations are: a) Park Street at Pacific Avenue, b) Park Street at\nWebb Avenue/Times Way, c) Park Street mid-street crosswalk between Santa Clara Avenue\nand Central, and d) Webster Street at Taylor Avenue. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-\nCook asked why the locations selected for the inpavement lights were only along Park Street\nand Webster Street. In particular she questioned why locations at Shore Line Drive and\nWillow Street were not selected. The Secretary informed the Commission that the project is\ngrant funded and that these locations cannot be changed. The Secretary will forward\nsuggested location to staff for future consideration. Commissioner Audrey Lord-Hausman\nstated that the community needs to be better informed on the intent and purpose of the\nlighted crosswalks, that they should not be treated like a crosswalk at a traffic signal. A\nsuggestion was made that AP&T CATV Channel 31 be used as an outreach and training aid.\nCommissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook stated that some of the lights at the Eighth\nStreet/Portola Street lighted crosswalk are not working. The Secretary will inform\nMaintenance staff.\n4. Pedestrian Access during Construction of Parking Garage:\nSee minutes under Guest above for comments of pedestrian access. Commissioner\nAdrienne Longley-Cook stated that pedestrians, including a large number of high school\nstudents, are walking in the middle of Oak Street and not using the open west side sidewalk.\nMotion carried to recommend that temporary access be provided for safe access on the east\nside of Oak Street.\nOLD BUSINESS:\n5. Cineplex Theater:\nThe Secretary reviewed the Cineplex building plans with the Commission. Most of the\neleven suggestions by the Commission's October 24, 2005 have been included in the design.\nCommissioner Charles Bunker was still concerned that disabled seating locations were too\nclose to the screen. The Secretary informed Mr. Bunker that these locations are the standard\nlocations for a stadium seating style Cineplex. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook\nstated that there was an insufficient number of assisted living devices provided for each\nauditorium. The Secretary will contact the architect to discuss how the numbers of assisted\nliving devices was determined. The Secretary assumes that they conform to ADA standards.\n6. Alameda Hospital Health Fair:\nCommission will have a table at the fair.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 3, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nOctober 23,2006\n2006 Minutes\nPage 3\n7. Alameda Youth Collaborative:\nCommissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission about the Collaborative\nquestionnaire informational slip which will be included in the Collaborative 10th year time\ncapsule. The Commission moved that the following information will be provided in the time\ncapsule: 1) Name - Commission on Disability Issues; 2) Size - The number will be based on\nthe 1996 census report, 10,000 disabled and 2006 census report, 12,500; 3) Benefits -\ninforming various City and Civic groups on the needs of the disabled community. Making\ngroups and agencies aware of accessibility needs to all public events; and 4) include photos\nof the City Hall parking lot ramp and the Park Street/Santa Clara Avenue intersection\ncountdown pedestrian signal.\n8. Press Release:\nChair Ed Cooney reviewed the October Disability Awareness month press release.\nCommission approved without corrections.\n9. Assembly Bill 1234-Ethics - Training: (Secretary)\nThe Commission moved for a special meeting on November 13th at 7:30 p.m. to take the\nethics training and exam. Secretary to reserve City Hall Room 360.\n10. Status of Accommodation Recommendations:\nTabled. Policy recommendations to be part of Assistant Risk Manager/ADA coordinator's\ntransition plan.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n1. Vice-Chair Jody Moore would like to have the Albany School District Superintendent\naddress the Commission at a future meeting on the districts blue ribbon Commission on\nAutism.\n2. Commissioner Adrienne Longley-Cook informed the Commission that the Santa Clara\nConvention Center will be hosting its annual Disability Exposition on November 3-5th\n3. Commission Audrey Lord-Hausman stated that she will be attending a luncheon given by the\nInternational Council of Shopping Centers that will include a guest speaker on \"Changes in\nADA'.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 4, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nOctober 23,2006\n2006 Minutes\nPage 4\n4. Commissioner Charles Bunker informed the Commission; a) that the shrubs that where\nprotruding into the pedestrian/bike path along Constitution Way have been trimmed, and b)\nthe Red Cross will be meeting this Tuesday on the Disaster Registry program.\n5.\nCommissioner Toby Berger informed the Commission that Disability Sports USA has\nopened a baseball field, which was made possible through many contributions. The\ninformation will be forwarded to Ms. Roberta Rockwell via Audrey Lord-Hausman.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, November 27th, 2006\nin Room 360, City Hall. A special meeting for ethics training will be held on November 13th, , room\nto be determined.\nMatthew T. Naclerio\nPublic Works Director\nEd Sommerauer\nAssociate Civil Engineer\nES:lc\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\MCD Disability Committee/2006\\1023min.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, October 23, 2006\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:04 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMember Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nVice President Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKohlstrand, Mariani and McNamara.\nPresident Lynch was absent.\nAlso present were Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Planning Services Manager\nAndrew Thomas, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason, and Planner III Douglas\nGarrison.\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes for the meeting of October 9, 2006\nMember Kohlstrand noted that in the vote at the bottom of page 12 to extend the meeting,\nMember Mariani is listed as abstaining. She recalled that she voted against the motion,\nand noted that the vote should read: \"AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0.\"\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to approve the minutes for the meeting of October\n9, 2006, as amended.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nActing President Cunningham noted that staff requested that Item 8-C be heard after Item\n8-A.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to hear Item 8-C after Item 8-A.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nMs. Susan Pieper noted that she had received a notice about proposed exterior\nmodifications for part of Alameda Towne Centre, referring to the old Walgreen's to Ross\nand Petco. She noted that it had been reviewed by the Planning & Building Department\nfor architectural design prior to building permit approval. She urged the City to bring this\nissue before the Planning Board for discussion, in order to avoid a piecemeal approach to\nAlameda Towne Centre.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Dorothy Reid noted that she wished to discuss the permit to make the changes on\nBuildings 300 (former Walgreen's), 400 and 500 in Alameda Town Centre. She noted\nthat was the corner that residents were concerned about with respect to bus traffic. She\nrequested clarification on the plans for that area of the center. She expressed concern\nabout the 37-foot-high tower, which she believed was unnecessary. She was very\nconcerned that this project may get out of control, and appreciated staff's efforts in\nworking on this project.\nMr. Thomas noted that there had been many changes at South Shore over the years, and\nthat there were periodic amendments that come before the Planning Board. In this case,\nstaff sent out a notice to the neighbors, as is customary with all design reviews. If the\nneighbors have concerns about what staff was considering, staff has the ability to bring it\nto the Planning Board. Staff anticipated having a study session on the South Shore project\nat the November 13, 2006, meeting. The gas station proposal will also be discussed.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether the Planning Board members\ncould receive the same notices received by the neighbors regarding the proposed\ndevelopments, Mr. Thomas confirmed that would be possible. He believed that should be\npart of the normal noticing procedure, and would ensure that took place.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and DR06-0062)\n(CL). Applicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to\nallow a one-story building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with\n69 parking spaces to be constructed on a 4.1 acre site. The site is located at 2275\nHarbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD,\nCommercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. (Applicant\nrequests continuance.)\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue this item.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN- - 0\n7-B. Applicant: City of Alameda (BB). Review the bus shelter survey results and\nrecommend City bus shelter design standards for future bus shelter locations in\nAlameda.\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to continue this item.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether one particular bus shelter had\nbeen recommended, Mr. Thomas replied staff would need more time to coordinate with\nPublic Works with respect to a recommended shelter.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 3, "text": "7-C.\nApplicant: City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (RS).\nApplicant requests a finding that the proposed Sixth Amendment to the\nCommunity Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement\nProject conforms to the City of Alameda's General Plan as it exists and is\ncurrently being amended.\nM/S Cook/Ezzy Ashcraft and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-\n38 to make a finding that the proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community\nImprovement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project conforms to the\nCity of Alameda's General Plan as it exists and is currently being amended.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 4, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n8-A.\nApplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to\nallow five new buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor\narea with a total of 268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site\n(CL). The site is located at 1900 - 1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development\nZoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-0003 and DR06-0071).\n(Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)\nMr. Thomas summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this project.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Joe Ernst, applicant, SRM Associates, displayed the site plan and described SRM's\nefforts on sustainable design and attracting more business services to the park. He noted\nthat they were an Alameda-certified green business, and that every building they own\nimplement green programs, including cleaning and carbon-offset programs. He noted that\nthey have four LEED-rated projects, I process.\nMr. Stephen Fee, project architect, noted that as a former member of the Planning Board,\nhe understood the challenges faced by the Board with respect to large projects. He\npresented the refinements that had been made to the parking plan and the architectural\ndesign for the project.\nThere were no speaker slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether there were any incentives for\nthe tenants to buy into a green building, Mr. Ernst replied that was not necessary because\nevery prospective tenant he has spoken with wanted to \"go green.\" He did find it\nnecessary to provide education on the costs and benefits of green building, which he\nfound to be an effective way for the tenants to incorporate green elements into their\ndesigns. He described how the tenant improvement program can help the building gain\nLEED points.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft Member Kohlstrand noted that the 75% recycling rate of\nconstruction materials was impressive.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook how the applicant planned to make\nchanges at the Master Plan level that would facilitate getting more services on the site,\nMr. Ernst noted that they had given thought to that issue, and that it was a challenge for\nthem. He noted that 30 acres close to the Ferry terminal were available, including 10\nacres right on the water; he believed that was their best opportunity. He noted that the\nresidents must embrace services such as a restaurant, which would be difficult to be\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 5, "text": "supported only by the business park.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the proposed parking was 268\nspaces, where the minimum required was 189 spaces, Mr. Ernst noted that they did not\nwant to oversize the parking. He added that while the parking ratios on the footprints\nalone may look high when adding the mezzanine component to the office, they will come\nback in line; he noted that every buyer wanted mezzanine space because of the cost of\nreal estate.\nMember Kohlstrand believed that if the applicant kept everything the way it was, but\nremoved the parking spaces in the front, she would be very comfortable with the project.\nShe would like to see less parking in front of all the buildings, and appreciated the\napplicant's responsiveness. Mr. Ernst noted that these buildings have a very well defined\nfront for the office component, and a back for the manufacturing/warehouse components.\nThe applicants believed that it was very important to separate those functions, which\nadded to the long-term value of the project. They tried to break up the parking by added\nstreet trees and breaking up the parking with a hedgerow, which blocked the rows of cars.\nHe noted that the presence of cars was a positive factor, which indicated there was\nactivity on this formerly sleepy parcel.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was very pleased and impressed impressive with\nthe environmentally friendly design elements incorporated into this project, and she\nbelieved this was a responsible design. She believed the buildings were attractive, and\nunderstood the challenges of leasing buildings in such a site. She believed that SRM had\nmade a good-faith effort to attract businesses. Mr. Ernst noted that they had a 30%\nvacancy rate, which was still relatively high. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City\nshould encourage the applicant's efforts to encourage occupancy.\nMember Mariani noted that she was also pleased with the project, and would like to see\nall of the architectural enhancements in Phase I.\nMember McNamara noted that she had been concerned about the architectural design, and\nwas very pleased with the changes that were proposed, especially with the change of\ntextures and three-foot recesses to add interest. She supported the addition of those\nfeatures to Phase I where possible.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-39 to\napprove a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five new buildings\ntotaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of 268 parking\nspaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site, with the modification of adding trees and sun\nlouvers in Phase I.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0\n8-C. GPA05-02, R05-04, MP05-02, DP05-02, TM05-02, IS05-03 -Grand Marina\nVillage Residential Development (AT). The applicant requests approval of a\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 6, "text": "General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Plan, Master Plan and Vesting\nTentative Map and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the\ndevelopment of forty (40) new detached single family homes. Development of the\nresidential project would involve the reconfiguration of the existing marina parking\nlot and improvements to the existing waterfront path and open space areas within the\n8.36 acre Master Plan area. The site is located in the M2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning\nDistrict at the intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way to the south of the\nOakland Estuary and recreational marina facilities, north of the Pennzoil property\nand City of Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard, and west of Grand\nAvenue. (Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board\nrecommend to the City Council approval of the mitigated negative declaration, a General\nPlan Amendment to specific mixed use consistent with the Northern Waterfront General\nPlan Amendment, rezoning to the MX zone, the Master Plan, the Tentative Map, the\ndevelopment plan and design review.\nMr. Don Ricci, Dahlin Group, displayed and described in detail the project's architectural\ndesign and landscaping plan. He described the features of the homes and the sites, and\ndisplayed the elevations. They proposed Craftsman, cottage and coastal-style elevations,\nwhich they believed were appropriate for a waterfront location. The elevations were\narticulated, and the massing stepped back in the front to add interest to the street. The\nporches would be five feet deep on all of the plans, and two of the three styles have\nsecond-floor verandas; both the porches and the verandas would be deep enough to\nfurnish, encouraging people to use them, and interacts with passersby on the street.\nStucco, board and batten siding, and shingle siding would be proposed for all four sides\nof the homes, not just the fronts. They also hoped to use a rich and varied color palette for\nthe entire project, bringing vibrancy to the streetscape. He described the various plans in\ndetail, and displayed a video simulation of the streetscape and elevations.\nThere were no speaker slips.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember McNamara noted that she was very impressed by the presentation and the\ndesigns. She was pleased with the revisions, and believed that many of the issues raised\nin January had been addressed. She inquired about the maintenance of the open space and\nthe parks. Mr. Ricci confirmed that they would be maintained by the homeowners.\nMr. David Day, Warmington Homes, addressed Member McNamara's question and\nnoted that the CC&Rs contained the details. The part of the BCDC parks where the\nhomes were fronted would be maintained by the HOA. The 20-foot paseo would be\nmaintained through the association. She liked the fact that the amount of parking was\nreduced, and that the open space was maximized.\nVice President Cook noted that she liked the old wood pier, which she believed was more\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 7, "text": "appropriate than the asphalt pier. She inquired whether the applicant had considered\ntaking the asphalt off. Mr. Day noted that they were open to the idea, and did not know\nthe condition of whatever was under the asphalt, which is in poor shape. He noted that\nthey had planned to put a sign before the pier, warning drivers, rather than bollards, but\nadded that was still open for discussion. He noted that there were bollards across the way,\ngoing into the boatyard to stop traffic from going into the park.\nMr. Thomas believed that BCDC staff and City staff were on the same page, in that they\ndid not want the wood pier used as a parking lot. They would need to develop a way to\nallow vehicle access, and then manage it so that people do not use it as a parking lot.\nStaff would need to do research on the asphalt issue, especially with respect to the water\nquality issue raised by Vice President Cook. He noted that the broken asphalt was unsafe\nand in very bad shape.\nVice President Cook believed a wooden pier would have a more authentic appearance.\nShe also suggested appropriate signage and safeguards to protect pedestrians and\nbicyclists from automobile traffic.\nActing President Cunningham noted that Christopher Buckley had submitted a speaker slip,\nand requested a motion to reopen the public hearing.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to reopen the public hearing.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident, noted that with respect to circulation, he agreed\nwith having Hibbard cut through to the shoreline; the connection between Hibbard and\nGrand would be converted to open space. He had looked at the traffic counts and the\nestimated parking use of the marina function, both on weekdays and the weekends; it\nseemed to him that the cars would then be directed through the middle of the residential\ndevelopment on Hibbard Street; the connection between Hibbard and Grand that might\nreduce the impact of the traffic on the development. He requested a response from the\ndeveloper or staff to that observation.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were currently two ways into that parking lot, and that many\npeople enter on Fortmann, or can go to the end of Grand Street. With the recent change in\nthe circulation at the end of Grand Street, drivers would have to go through parking area\nwhere the boat trailers are left before cutting into the parking lot. He noted that most of the\nusers of the parking lot have already shifted their patterns to taking Fortmann. Staff and the\ntraffic engineers have examined the traffic flow which currently goes to the marina and\nwhich could go to the new development, and determined that the flow would be very small;\nthis area was at the end of a cul de sac. Staff was not at all concerned about the loss of the\naccess to the parking lot by the boat ramp.\nMr. Buckley suggested that staff consider measures to encourage traffic to use Fortmann\nrather than Hibbard if they want to leave the parking area. Mr. Thomas replied that until the\nnew site develops, Fortmann was the only street to use. He added that bulbouts and\nlandscaping were used to make Hibbard into more of a neighborhood street. Staff believed\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 8, "text": "that using Fortmann would be a more natural movement.\nWith respect to the design of the buildings, particularly the three-story buildings, Mr.\nBuckley inquired whether they could be redesigned so the third floor could be better\nintegrated to the rest of the building. He noted that the Guide to Residential Design\nspecifically discouraged popups as additions to existing historic buildings; he believed these\nbuildings were attempting to reflect the historic architectural character of Alameda, and that\nthis design principle might apply to these buildings. He wished to call attention to the\ndetailing of these buildings, and while looking on the City website, could not find the\nPlanning Board resolution for a permanent Planned Development in the design review. He\nwould like more information on window selection, trim, porch elements, which he believed\nwere very important. He knew that Warmington Homes generally handled these elements\nvery well.\nMr. Thomas noted that the packet in the staff report contained the resolution approving the\nPlanned Development and design review. The Master Plan also contained some details, and\nthere were conditions of approval requiring that prior to the issuance of a building permit,\nthere would be a final landscape plan and final architectural detail to be submitted to the\nPlanning Director for final approval. He noted that the Planning Board may add specifics to\nthose conditions.\nMember Kohlstrand wished to compliment the project sponsor for their enhancements to the\nproject, and believed it had improved greatly. She shared Mr. Buckley's concerns, and\nsuggested that signage be included showing marina access was via Fortmann. She noted that\n12 spaces along Hibbard were assigned to BCDC.\nMr. Thomas noted that there were 12 guest spaces on one side of the triangular parks.\nHowever, within the large public parking area for the marina, BCDC wanted the City to\nassign 10 spaces for public users of the waterfront so boat users don't park there.\nMr. Jason Neary, CBG Engineers, addressed the parking issue, and noted that under the\npermit, BCDC identified 10 parking spaces to be available for BCDC's use. He noted that\nthose 10 spots would be allocated somewhere along the marina parking area for BCDC use.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand regarding concerns about the borrowed\neasement and shadowing, Mr. Day replied that they had not had any negative feedback\nabout the borrowed easement. He noted that there was a lot of light in the third story during\nthe day, and noted that the third story can only be 500 square feet by code. He added that\nwould result in shadowing of a very small percentage of the house next door, and added that\nthe homeowners like the private sideyard for barbeques and other social activities.\nMember Kohlstrand noted the condition recommending that all the sidewalks be a minimum\nof five feet wide, and inquired whether the sidewalk along Grand could be wider. Mr.\nThomas believed that would be an acceptable condition for Grand, and described several\nlandscaping possibilities near the sidewalks and alleys.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 9, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the City had a long-term plan for\ndealing with the end of Grand Street, Mr. Thomas replied that the applicants had proposed\ncurb and landscaping to replace the temporary solution with the flip-up barriers.\nActing President Cunningham complimented the applicants on their progress in refining this\napplication, and believed it could be further improved. He believed that some living\nstandards were being compromised in this design, and believed the density of this project\ncould be reduced. He believed there were many small compromises within the project and\nadded that the general project was very good.\nVice President Cook commended the applicants on how far the design has come, and was\nexcited about the paseo and the grid. She was happy that several of the units directly fronted\nthe waterfront, and liked the grass in front of the houses. She would like grass instead of\nsome of the shrubs in other landscaped areas near the other landscaping, such as the low\nshrubs. She expressed concern about the heights of the houses, and that there would be 30\nthree-story homes. She did not want the affordable units to stand out. She believed that the\nmarket has changed somewhat with respect to the economic feasibility of this project, but\nwould like to reduce the number of units somewhat to allow the owners to have a little more\nroom. She noted that while this project would be consistent with Measure A, she also was\nhesitant about having a somewhat shaded eight-foot side yard.\nActing President Cunningham noted that while this project may be compliant with Measure\nA, he wondered whether this particular density would be desirable in this case.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she could support wider alleyways and more moving\nspace for pedestrians and cars, but she also wanted to note that Alameda needs a variety of\nhousing stock to meet the needs of different kinds of people. She noted that there were many\nbusy working families that would like to have a smaller yard to reduce the amount of\nmaintenance, and believed there were many creative ways to landscape a home. She\nbelieved this kind of project could offer a good housing choice for certain lifestyles and\nhousehold types.\nMember Mariani did not feel that this project was too dense because of the presence of the\nwaterfront. She complimented the developer on the progress made on this design, and noted\nthat she did not prefer the three-story design, especially if the two-story homes were\ndesignated as the affordable units. She liked the way the different styles interacted, as well\nas the historic perspective put on the designs. She believed the designs were very appealing.\nMember McNamara recalled that the Clement Street project had a density of 24 units per\nacre, whereas this project was 11 units per acre. She noted that she had once lived in a zero-\nlot home, and understood the lifestyle choices with respect to home maintenance.\nMember Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue with the density, and agreed with\ncomments made by Members Mariani and Ezzy Ashcraft indicating that it did have a certain\nopen feel to it. She believed the City needed to provide different types of housing in\nAlameda, and that not everyone wants or can afford single-family homes with big yards.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 10, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether any of the units could be\nconsidered disable accessible, Mr. Ricci replied that they were not, and that the porches\nwere purposely elevated for the design purposes. He noted that there were no downstairs\nbedrooms in these homes.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member Ezzy Ashcraft whether there were any green building\nelements built into these homes, Mr. Ricci replied that with the exception of the standard\nTitle XXIV practice, there was no requirement for LEED certification in this residential\nsegment. He noted that they did include dual-pane windows, wall insulation, and noted that\nit was very difficult to design for solar orientation in a subdivision environment. He noted\nthat Warmington Homes did what they could with respect to green construction techniques,\nusing recycled materials, recycling construction debris, and using crushed concrete as\na\nbase.\nIn response to an inquiry by Acting President Cunningham whether they intended to have\nair conditioning in these homes, Mr. Ricci believed that was the case.\nMr. Day wished to address the issue of affordable units, and noted that on the Bayport\nproject, the affordable units were smaller and attached. Architecturally, they have a similar\namount of detail, and they had not heard any complaints about the BMR units being\nrecognizable at all.\nMember Mariani noted that she did not like the two-story/three-story distinction. She\nbelieved that the affordable housing plan should be fair.\nActing President Cunningham did not care for the visual impact of the third story on top of\nthe main part of the house, and did not believe it was as well-integrated as it could be. He\nbelieved the two-story design was very nice. He suggested eliminating some of the three-\nstory homes in the project.\nAfter a discussion describing the affordable units and criteria, Member Kohlstrand noted\nthat she would support maintaining the number of affordable units, and suggested that the\nsquare footage be varied.\nMember McNamara agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and added that the\nnumber of variable designs helped the neighborhood environment. She did not believe the\ntwo-story homes should be strictly affordable units.\nIn response to an inquiry by Member McNamara whether a one-story home would be an\noption, Mr. Ricci replied that would not be feasible, resulting in a 600-square foot home.\nMr. Thomas advised that the City Council, acting as the Community Improvement\nCommission, will have to approve the affordable housing program for this site. The\nPlanning Board would make a recommendation as to the distribution of affordable housing\nunits for consideration by the Community Improvement Commission.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 11, "text": "Member Mariani believed this site presented a major opportunity for Alameda, and that the\ndesigns were beautiful and colorful; she noted that the high price for the market-rate homes\nmade the disparity between the market-rate and affordable units that much more noticeable.\nMr. Thomas acknowledged her concern, which he said ran through all of the City's projects.\nVice President Cook suggested that the landscaping near the Alaska Packers building be\nreconsidered, and that some of the ground cover, grasses and shrubs be replaced with lawn\nthat would allow people to have sit and have lunch.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolutions\nrecommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration, adopt the General\nPlan Amendment and adopt the Zoning Amendment.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMr. Thomas described several conditions of approval by the Planning Board that the\nPlanning Board would need to decide on whether to add to the Master Plans Tentative\nMap and Final Development Plan.\nM/S Cook/McNamara and unanimous to adopt the following conditions of approval:\n1. The applicant will study the feasibility of exposing the underlying wood planks\nand provide a consistent cosmetically appealing walking and bicycling surface. If\nupon further study by the applicant, it is determined by the Planning and Building\nDirector that exposing the existing wood planks is financially infeasible, unsafe,\nor contrary to water quality standards, the Planning and Building Director may\napprove an asphalt resurfacing plan.\n2. To provide a continuous waterfront promenade with consistent materials\nthroughout the Northern Waterfront, the existing asphalt pedestrian path from\nGrand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be replaced with a concrete path\nto match the concrete path provided along the Marina Cove waterfront.\n3. The applicant shall provide signage to direct traffic down Fortmann to the marina\nparking lot to discourage use of Hibbard by marina-bound traffic.\n4. The Grand Street sidewalk shall be widened to facilitate pedestrian access to the\nwaterfront.\n5. The waterfront open space landscaping plan between Hibbard and Alaska Packers\nshould be revised to include larger areas of turf for informal seating.\n6. The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall\ninclude revisions to the third story elements to ensure compatibility with the City\nof Alameda Residential Design Guidelines for third stories.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 12, "text": "M/S Cook/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to widen the front porches to\neight feet.\nAYES - 2 (Lynch absent); NOES - 3 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand, McNamara);\nABSTAIN - 1 (Mariani)\nThe motion failed.\nM/S Cook/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to revise the elevations and\ndesigns of the third story to better reflect the City's design guidelines.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - - 0\nM/S Cunningham/Cook to adopt a condition of approval to extend the paseo to the\ntriangular park, with the understanding that two units may be eliminated.\nAYES - 4 (Lynch absent); NOES - 2 (Ezzy Ashcraft, Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Mariani/Cunningham to adopt a condition of approval to require that distribution of\nthe ten affordable units will be adjusted so that a minimum of two of the ten units shall be\nthree story units and two of the two story units be available at market rate.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Kohlstrand); ABSTAIN - 0\nM/S Cook/Kohlstrand and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 06- to\napprove the Master Plan, Final Development Plan, and design review with the added\nconditions.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMember Mariani left the meeting after this item.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 13, "text": "8-B.\nV06-0005/DR06-0052- Christopher Seiwald - 2320 Blanding Avenue (CE).\nThe applicant requests approval of Variance and Major Design Review applications\nto allow the construction of a 17,058 square foot addition to an existing 27,300\nsquare foot commercial building. The total building square footage of the proposed\nthree-story structure is 44,358 square feet. A Variance to the parking requirements is\nrequested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces where 120 parking spaces are\nrequired by the Alameda Municipal Code. The project site is zoned M-2 General\nIndustrial (Manufacturing). (Continued from the meeting of October 9, 2006.)\nMs. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this proposed\nproject.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Richard Hornberger, project architect, summarized the background of the project,\nand introduced the property owner.\nMr. Christopher Seiwald, applicant, noted that his company, Perforce Software, was\nstarted in Alameda and added that they were rapidly running out of room; he estimated\nthat the current building could accommodate another year or two of growth.\nMr. Hornberger noted that in the new layout, two curb cuts were deleted, resulting in 3\nparking spaces.\nVice President Cook believed this was a good use, and expressed concern about\nintensifying what she perceived to be a very dangerous corner. She hoped that Public\nWorks would look at that corner. Mr. Hornberger noted that the applicant was very\nsensitive to that corner. Vice President Cook added that the corner should be striped, that\nit should be clear where people should be when they turn the corner, and that there\nprobably should be a stop sign at that corner.\nMs. Eliason noted that staff would pass that information to Public Works.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft realized that this block did not contain the most attractive\nbuildings in the City, and while she believed the proposed building was generally\nattractive, she was concerned about the color renderings in the back of the packet that\nillustrated the conspicuous three-story buildings. She inquired whether the roof line could\nbe changed to add some visual interest. Mr. Hornberger noted that they could re-examine\nthe design, and believed that the combination of the banding at the top and the bottom\nhelped the building blend in. He added that the strong vertical element and a stepped\nplanter also helped. He believed the introduction of another element would add to the\nvisual busyness.\nMember McNamara believed this building would be an enhancement to the current area,\nwhich she believed was currently blighted. She did not object to the nine-parking-space\nvariance out of 111 parking spaces. She did not believe there was any room on Oak Street\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 14, "text": "for on-street parking, but believed that there would be room on Blanding and on Clement\nfor an additional nine cars if needed. She understood Member Ezzy Ashcraft's design\nconcerns, and believed the current design of the new building should be compatible with\nwhat was already there.\nMember Kohlstrand believed it was exciting to have an office building in downtown\nAlameda, where the workers could support the existing businesses and a new caf\u00e9. She\nwould like to see more buildings like that, and she was comfortable with the variance.\nShe was concerned about the consistency of the application of the in lieu fees, and she\ntended to act in favor of the variances over the in lieu fee. She agreed with Member\nMcNamara's comments about the design in terms of integrating it with the existing\nstructures.\nActing President Cunningham noted that he did not object to the parking variances, and\ninquired whether there was a shear wall in the parking area under the building. Mr.\nHornberger confirmed that it was a shear wall and a support structure for the structure\nabove. Acting President Cunningham inquired whether removal of the two end spaces in\nthe middle aisle would ease circulation. Mr. Hornberger replied that more spaces would\nbe lost, but added that there was already an adequate 24 feet for backing up. He added\nthat they discussed adding a three-foot backup at the end wall at both sides, and that they\nwould probably convert the three spaces next to the stairway into compact spaces.\nActing President Cunningham commented that the existing entrance and the awnings\nworked very well, and suggested de-emphasizing the two finger maroon elements that\nprotruded into the air, or to bring them in line with the parapet. He also suggested\nreducing the height of the building in the center element to reduce the visual impact. Mr.\nHornberger agreed with that suggestion.\nActing President Cunningham inquired what would replace the parking that would be\ntemporarily lost, Mr. Ken Carvalho, Buestad Construction, noted that they planned to\npark along Oak Street.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/McNamara and unanimous to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nMember Kohlstrand would like the street frontage along Blanding enhanced to avoid\ncontinuous building massing, and to add pedestrian interest and articulation.\nIn response to Vice President Cook's inquiry regarding the caf\u00e9 parking, Mr. Hornberger\nreplied that it would be adjacent to the caf\u00e9 itself. He added that there would be two\nhandicapped spaces for the caf\u00e9 in the back, and noted that the seating area would face a\npatio area with a trellis.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 15, "text": "Member Kohlstrand supported the variance and would like to see more work on the\nfa\u00e7ade.\nM/S Kohlstrand/McNamara to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-40 to\napprove Variance and Major Design Review applications to allow the construction of an\naddition to an existing 27,300 square foot commercial building. A Variance to the parking\nrequirements is requested to allow the provision of 111 parking spaces where 120 parking\nspaces are required by the Alameda Municipal Code. The following modifications will be\nadded:\n1.\nThe height of the glazed element of the parapet on the addition would be\nreduced, and the awning level would be brought down;\n2.\nPathways to the parking area would be created; and\n3.\nThe street frontage on Blanding would be enhanced with planters and/or\nsetbacks.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 16, "text": "8-D.\nMajor Design Review - DR06-0034 - Applicant: Mohamed Elhashash - 1530\n& 1532 Ninth Street (CE). The applicant requests a Major Design Review for\nalteration of three single-family homes, each into a duplex, for a total of six units.\nThe site is located at 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street within an R-4, Neighborhood\nResidential Zoning District.\nMs. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Thomas Touhy, project architect, described the background of this application, and\nnoted that they had reviewed comments received by the Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society (AAPS), the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) and City Council.\nThey worked with the applicant to address those comments, and developed some\nrecommendations. In the meeting, they worked through the accessibility issues for the\nlower units for the two front buildings, as well as the relative benefits and costs of raising\nthe buildings versus digging down. During that meeting, they decided to leave the\nbuildings exactly where they were, which seemed to solve a lot of problems with respect\nto proportions and the Golden Mean. He noted that Christopher Buckley had provided\nadditional comments, which he believed were generally supportive of the changes in the\nproject. He noted that the existing porch railing may have been boxed in, and if so, the\nexisting railing will stay. If the existing railing is missing, it would be a more difficult\nissue with respect to adding a new element to meet the building code. He noted that the\napplicant would install all wood windows, and will consider the hipped roof line for the\nrear additions. With respect to moving the house, the applicants had decided not to lift the\nbuildings up at all; they were in their historic locations, and they preferred to leave them\nthere. He noted that with respect to siding, the applicant will be able to show what areas\nwould be retained. He noted that much more would be able to be retained since the\nbuildings would not be raised. He believed it would be fair that the applicant would\nprefer that the control of the design stay within the purview of the City.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, AAPS, noted that they had submitted a letter on October 23,\n2006, with their comments. They believed the design detail showing the bay window was\nvery good, but it was only a partial elevation; he would prefer a fully detailed elevation\nfor the whole front elevation. AAPS was especially concerned about the handrail\ntreatment, which Mr. Touhy referred to. He noted that the handrail tops should form a\nstrong horizontal alignment with windowsills in Victorian buildings to form an\narchitectural base to the main floor. The heights of the existing handrail was 29 inches,\nbelow the Building Code height of 36 inches. Rather than using an extension, they would\nrather see the stairway design have a continuous rail that went down to a fairly substantial\nnewel post. Alternatively, the existing lower rails in front of the building could be kept,\nwith a simple supplemental railing to achieve the necessary Code height. He appreciated\nthe use of wood windows. He wished to clarify Item 6 of the letter, requesting the\nadditional details of the rest of the front elevation, including the porch column and rail\ntreatments in a complete set of details for consideration by the Planning and Building\nDirector prior to the issuance of the building permits and allowing AAPS and interested\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 16\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 17, "text": "members of the public to comment on those details before a decision was made.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMember Kohlstrand complimented the improvements and enhancements of these historic\nstructures, and believed the return to the historic character would be a positive change.\nActing President Cunningham noted that the applicant generally agreed with Mr.\nBuckley's comments, and that he was in tune with the handrail; he believed that sticking\nwith Mr. Buckley's recommendation would be beneficial. He was concerned about\ngetting neighborhood input, and had not heard any comments.\nMember McNamara noted that this project was re-noticed to the neighbors, and added\nthat Mr. Buckley was not originally noticed because he lived more than 300 feet away\nfrom the project. She stated she was very interested in hearing the neighborhood\nconcerns, and supported the project design.\nActing President Cunningham supported the City maintaining control of the project, as\nwell as garnering comment from AAPS.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was excited about this project, and believed that\nHAB's input had been very beneficial. She liked the proximity to public transportation,\nas well as the disabled access for the unit in the back. She was concerned about the 29-\ninch rail, when Code calls for 36 inches, and believed that was a safety and liability issue.\nVice President Cook liked this project and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. She\nexpressed concern about the landscaping in the staff report, and hoped the Planning &\nBuilding Director would consider fast-growing hedges.\nM/S Ezzy Ashcraft/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-\n45 to approve a Major Design Review for alteration of three single-family homes, each\ninto a duplex, for a total of six units, with the following modifications:\n1. The proposed windows on 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street will be double-glazed\nwood clad fiberglass.\n2. The railings and newel posts on 1530 and 1532 Ninth Street will be uncovered\nand restored. If they do not exist, appropriate replacements meeting historical\ndesigns shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building\nDirector.\n3. Complete elevation drawings will be prepared once the shingles have been\nremoved and will be approved the satisfaction of the Planning and Building\nDirector.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n8-E.\nAppointment of Two Planning Board Members to the Big Box Retail\nWorking Committee.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 17\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 18, "text": "M/S McNamara/Kohlstrand to extend the meeting to 11:40 p.m.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0\nMs. Doreen Soto noted that they were anxious to commence with this committee, and\nnoted that representatives had been selected from the Economic Development\nCommission and the Transportation Commission. She requested two nominees from the\nPlanning Board to schedule an initial meeting and look at the scope of work from the\nconsultant. They hoped to have an initial meeting before the end of the year, if the\nholiday schedule allows; they hoped to complete the study within six months. The final\nproduct would be an analysis of all of the issues surrounding big box stores, starting with\na definition. Ms. Eliason noted that zoning amendments or policies may result from these\nmeetings.\nMember Ezzy Ashcraft volunteered to sit on the Committee.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to nominate Member McNamara to the\nCommittee.\nAYES - 6 (Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-\nPresident Cook).\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee\n(Board Member Mariani).\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\nC.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board\nMember Kohlstrand).\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force\n(Board Member Cunningham).\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 18\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-10-23", "page": 19, "text": "This item was continued to the next meeting.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nThis item was continued to the next meeting.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:39 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCathy Woodbusy\nCathy Woodbury; Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the November 13, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This\nmeeting was audio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 19\nOctober 23, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf"}