{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, MAY 14, 2012\n7:00 P.M.\n1. CONVENE:\n7:05 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Henneberry\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members Ezzy\nAshcraft, Henneberry, Knox White, and K\u00f6ster.\n4. MINUTES:\nApril 9, 2012; President Zuppan reviewed the minutes and felt they were not sufficient for\napproval.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to continue the minutes to a later date when they are\nmore completed. Seconded by Board member Burton;\nDiscussion: Board member Knox White stated that the motion for item 9B on April 9 minutes are\nnot correct, directed staff to make sure corrections address the motion.\nMotion carries 6-0\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nBoard member Knox White requested during discussion that when Agenda Item 8A is reviewed\nby the Planning Board that it is maintained as a single item meeting agenda, as it was originally\nscheduled to be.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred.\nMotion carries 6-0\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6-A\nFuture Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, reviewed the future agendas.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 2, "text": "6-B\nAlameda Landing - Final Design Review: Target Store Building Design\nImprovements\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave brief report.\nBoard member Knox White stated that his understanding of this item was an update; and the\nBoard could call it for review.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board is being asked to accept the staff decision or\ncall the action for review at a future Public Hearing. She stated she is concerned, procedurally,\nthat the item is not being re-opened. She concluded by stating that she prefers the sign not be\nilluminated and asked if the Board can construe that staff has decided that it is a good idea to\nask that the sign not be lighted.\nMr. Thomas replied that the sign, although on an angle, faces residential neighborhoods.\nAccording the Boards original condition, the sign should not be illuminated. The staff decision\nto not allow the sign to be illuminated complies with the Board's original conditions.\nPresident Zuppan asked that since the sign being on an angle creates a bit of a grey area, and\nif the sign's illuminations could come back during the design review.\nMr. Thomas responded in the affirmative.\nPresident Zuppan opened the public comment period.\nChuck Kapelke, resident, stated that due to the size and magnitude of the project a public\nreview process should be allowed.\nKaren Bey, resident, thanked the board for bringing the item back, allowing the public to\ncomment.\nJon Spangler, resident, stated he has been involved with the project for a decade and is glad to\nsee it on the agenda. He expressed disappointment that Target is not constructing a building\nwith zero net energy use.\nPresident Zuppan closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciates being able to see the building materials\nthat will be used. She referenced the letter written by John Dewes of Target to City staff and the\nBoard on May 1 that states time has become a critical factor and an extension in the design\nprocess and any further delays in the building approval would put the project timeline in\njeopardy.\nBoard member Burton concurred with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the\ncharacterization of the letter which has a disappointing tone and expressed a hope that the\nBoard will not see that tone in the future.\nBoard member Henneberry stated he concurs with the recommendation to not allow the 12 foot\nsign that faces residential be illuminated.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 3, "text": "Board member K\u00f6ster asked if the display windows near the public art are going to be included\nin the final documents because the elevations for display windows are not displayed on the\nrenderings.\nMr. Thomas confirmed that the display windows are included and that the perspective\nrenderings are not up to date.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster acknowledged Mr. Spangler's comments on energy efficiencies and\nasked if the building's energy efficiencies are still open for comment and review, even though\nthe core and foundation of the building has been approved.\nMr. Thomas clarified that the Board's discretion is over the exterior of the building.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to se more brick on the front of the\nbuilding.\nMr. Thomas responded that the building will be compliant with California Building Code and their\nenergy efficiency requirements.\nJohn Dewes, Target's Regional Development Manager, responded that Target does practice\nenergy efficiencies and the base building design meets the requirements for LEED Certification.\nPresident Zuppan stated her appreciation for receiving the materials board, because it helps her\nget a better perspective on how things are actually going to look.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that one of the challenges the Board faces is how to inform\nthe public on what the Planning Board is doing.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff is also frustrated, and wants to inform as many people as possible.\nHe explained that one of the ways staff is addressing the problem is by including plans in the\nBoard packet for review, questions, and comments.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated inclusion of the plans in the packet would certainly inform\nthe Board, but she doesn't think that would inform the public at large. She inquired about\nindividual residential notice with the Alameda Landing project and stated that perhaps there\naren't many resident's who live within the 300 foot required notification radius.\nMr. Thomas replied that there are residents within the 300 foot radius at the Bay Port\nDevelopment.\nPresident Zuppan stated that the Board has two options and can either accept the staff's\nrecommendation with no formal action required or call the item for review at a future public\nhearing.\nBoard members accepted staff's recommendation.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by submitting a\nspeaker's information slip, subject to the five-minute time limit.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 4, "text": "NONE\n8. CONSENT CALENDAR\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by\none motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the\nPlanning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker slip for that item.\n8-A\nAlameda Point Conformance Rezoning. Staff is requesting a continuance to a\nfuture meeting for consideration of a comprehensive zoning amendment for the lands west of\nMain Street commonly referred to as \"Alameda Point\" to bring the zoning into conformance with\nthe 1996 Community Reuse Plan and the 2003 General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point\nMotion to approve Consent Calendar made by Vice President Burton, seconded by Board\nmember Knox White.\nApproved 6-0.\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n9-A Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. A public hearing to review and make\na recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed Alameda County Transportation\nExpenditure Plan.\nObaid Khan, Public Works Department, gave brief presentation.\nArt Dao, Executive Director Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), gave a more\ndetailed presentation.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked any public meetings were held in the City of Alameda.\nMr. Dao replied that no public meetings were held in the City of Alameda.\nAn extensive series of questions and answers between Mr. Dao and the Board members\nensued regarding the allocation of the funds in Alameda and the rest of the region.\nPresident Zuppan opened the public comment period.\nJohn Spangler, resident, stated that the Bike to Work Day totals in the East Bay were record\nbreaking this year.\nPresident Zuppan closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Henneberry commented that the projects are all worthy and the increase tax\nshould be more. He stated that he is glad the plans includes improvements to curbs and gutters\nbecause allowing the infrastructure to deteriorate is to the City's detriment.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft commented that it appears to be a bit of an after-thought, that the\nBoard is seeing the plan tonight, since City Council will be reviewing it tomorrow, but the\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 5, "text": "Transportation Commission unanimously signed off on it. She asked why Rapid Bus Service\nwas not provided for the West Oakland BART station. She expressed delight that there will be\napplications for funds for the Shoreline Drive bike lane project.\nMr. Khan addressed the comments regarding the West Oakland BART station and explained\nthat staff used existing plans and policies to apply for projects.\nMr. Dao addressed AC Transit service by stating that the amount of funding that is proposed will\nrestore service to the 2009 level.\nBoard member Burton stated he supports recommending to City Council that they support this\nplan and said he is glad that there is an extended source of funding for the projects.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster concurred with the other board members that the plan is good. He stated\nthat a lot of the problem with the Bay Area is that if people choose to use public transportation\nthey have to take three modes of transportation to get anywhere: car, BART, and bus. He\nstated that most people are not going to do that. He asked how this will get people out of cars.\nMr. Dao answered that part of the plan includes investment in technology regarding bicycle and\npedestrian infrastructure.\nPresident Zuppan asked for clarification about the administrative costs in the report stating that\nthe report mentions 1% of revenue is spent on administrative costs, but later the report\nmentions that 3% of revenue will be spent on administrative costs.\nMr. Dao replied that the administrative spending cap on the ACTC is 4.5%.\nPresident Zuppan asked if the $750M in funding that produced $3.1B in projects is over the\nentire period of the measure.\nMr. Dao stated that it is over the current sales tax measure; revenue collection began in April\n2002 will terminate in 2022.\nPresident Zuppan asked if all local projects must accommodate for all modes of transportation,\npedestrians, bikes, cars, trucks, in order to receive funding.\nMr. Dao responded that he is hopeful that before ACTC funds any local project that there will be\nchecklists and processes to guarantee that projects that do not meet the criteria will not be\nfunded.\nPresident Zuppan stated that all the projects are great and would like to see them all happen;\nhowever she questioned if some projects, like the highways, which CalTrans should support,\nare funded if the state will continue to stop funding or take even more funding away.\nMr. Dao stated that since 1977 Senate Bill 45 allowed the local agencies to make decisions on\nwhere 75% of the state money goes.\nPresident Zuppan asked if fixing potholes in the bicycle infrastructure is included as well.\nMr. Dao replied in the affirmative.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 6, "text": "Board member Knox White asked where the Safe Routes to School money comes from.\nMr. Dao responded that the money does and will come out of the Bike and Pedestrian fund\nwhich is $600M.\nBoard member Knox White stated that Transform, his employer, runs the Alameda Safe Route\nto School Program. He clarified that he does not work on that program and does not receive\nany funding from that program; however he does receive funding from the current Measure B,\nand that funding will discontinue on June 30. He also expressed his concerns with cost\ncontainment of Measure B because projects can go wildly over cost and the amount voters have\napproved. He also proposes that the Board ask City Council to ask ACTC to adopt a policy to\nprotect voter funds from being used on projects that go over cost. He stated he would like to\nformally ask City Council to adopt a policy that says when the City is in the planning process\nthat plans will be supported that impact greenhouse gasses and support the City's Climate\nInitiative. He further expressed the necessity to clarify to City Council that there are only two\nspecific projects in the TEP: the Fruitvale Rapid Bus, and the 880 Broadway/Jackson, The\nrest of the projects listed are examples of eligible projects. He acknowledged that it is likely\nthat the City will get some of the money, but it is unlikely that the Park Street, High Street, and\nthe Fruitvale Bridge will all become Lifeline Bridges in the next 15-20 years. He stressed the\nneed to let the Council know that it is not a plan where $250M in projects is guaranteed, when in\nfact we are guaranteed about $85M.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the geographical equity statement.\nBoard member Knox White responded that geographical equity should be asked for in the\nCounty-Wide plan that uses TEP funding for leveraging. The leveraged funds are significantly\ninequitable and going to the least populated parts of the County.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on Board member Knox White's statement\nabout only two projects being listed as guaranteed projects.\nBoard member Knox White responded that of the six projects listed, only two are guaranteed;\nand the other four are examples of eligible corridors.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Board member Knox White if the term \"to be fully funded\"\nin the staff report means that it is guaranteed.\nBoard member Knox White stated that no where in the TEP does it state that the Miller Sweeny\nBridge will get $94M from the tax; although it is found in the County-wide Transportation plan,\nwhich is separate of the vote and is updated/changed every four years and one can only hope\nthat ACTC will not change the plan.\nBoard member Knox White made the motion to provide Council with the written document he\nprepared citing certain clarifications on the TEP.\nBoard member Burton seconds motions\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft during discussion questions the amount of information the Board\nis being asked to accept on board member Knox White's good word. Stating that normally\nwhen a motion is made there is the ability to reference back to information provided to both the\nBoard and the public. She stated she is troubled that there isn't more information and is\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 7, "text": "uncomfortable that the Board is being asked to assume \"facts not in evidence;\" and asks the\nDeputy City Attorney for an opinion on the appropriateness of the written motion.\nFarimah Faiz, Deputy City Attorney, responded that, although she has not fully digested the\nwritten motion, if the Board thinks that the information in the written motion is accurate than the\nBoard should proceed with the motion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her concern is that the motion references a lot of\ninformation and material beyond what is included in the report. And although she wants to ask\nCity Council to lend their support to the TEP, there is concern about a written motion.\nBoard member Knox White stated he will argue against sending something to City Council with\nno background information because staff did not have time to prepare a report. Although he\nwould prefer not to, he is willing to move the motion forward with just the first bullet point in the\nmotion.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that Vice Mayor Rob Bonta sits on the Transportation\nAdvisory Board, and although it's a bit unorthodox, she will support the motion as long as the\nwording is smoothed over.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that although it is an excellent piece of work and they are all\nworthy projects, it points to a number of concerns she has such as: the payoff, discipline,\nsupport, and some of the politics imbedded in the oversight. She stated that she will not support\nthis plan.\nBoard member Henneberry clarified if the motion is inclusive of all four written bullet points.\nPresident Zuppan answered in the affirmative\nAyes: Burton, Ezzy Ashcraft, Knox White, K\u00f6ster\nNoes: Zuppan, Henneberry\nMotion carries 4-2\n9-B\nParcel Map 10086 Application PLN12-0073-Catellus Alameda Development, LLC. A\nproposed parcel map application to construct a retail center, housing, public and internal\nroadways and associated improvements on a 55.6-acre property located south of Mitchell\nAvenue and east of Fifth Street commonly referred to as the \"Alameda Landing site\".\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager gave brief presentation of the project.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the plans include a network of open spaces for the\npublic's enjoyment.\nMr. Thomas responded that the open spaces being referred to pertain, primarily to the Retail\nCenter projected which has already been approved.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if Fifth Street and Mitchell Avenue will be dedicated to the\nCity and if the on sight streets, drives, aisles, and walkways will be privately owned and\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 8, "text": "maintained. She also asked how continuity of the street grid will be maintained with private\nstreets.\nMr. Thomas replied that the retail shopping center site plan and parking plan show where both\nthe private and public roads go.\nPresident Zuppan asked who sets the standards for maintenance of the private roads.\nMr. Thomas replied that the City sets the standards; and it is a public-private partnership.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that the private roads will not be subject to private ownership\nstandards.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the project will be a great improvement from the\ncurrent pile of rock, weeds, and broken concrete that currently exists.\nBoard member Burton stated that the project is clearly broken into four parcels, yet there is a\nfifth parcel that is approximately 4.8 acres. He asked who owns the \"remainder\" parcel, what it\nis for, and what its plans are.\nMr. Thomas replied that the remainder parcel is primarily the public rights of way.\nBill Kennedy, Vice President of construction for Catellus, stated that Public Works has\nrequested that the existing easements and any future easements, be identified on the map.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asks if the parcel mentioned in the resolution, which is being\ndivided in to four smaller parcels, is inclusive of the remainder parcel that is currently being\ndiscussed.\nMr. Kennedy answered that the parcel does not include that remainder\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked that since the 9.3 acres of land for the public right of way is\nnot the remainder parcel currently under discussion, then where is it.\nMr. Thomas stated that the 9 acres are for the streets.\nMr. Kennedy stated that usually project maps start with the large piece, create the parcels, and\ndedicate the rights of way.\nBoard member Burton stated that it now makes sense why the remainder is included on the\nmap and asked if the City owns it.\nMr. Thomas stated that the land was conveyed from the Navy to the City in 1999, the City still\nowns it, but has committed it to Catellus as part of the Catellus project in 2000.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if any mention of the remainder needs to be included in the\nresolution.\nMr. Thomas replied that it does not need to be stated in the resolution.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if in the future the entire Master Plan of the area could be included.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Thomas stated he would provide the Master Plan that was approved in 2006.\nPresident Zuppan opened the public comment period.\nKaren Bey, resident, stated that she does not see the parcel for the Miracle League Field on the\nparcel map.\nMr. Thomas explained that that the Miracle League Field that was discussed in 2006 was for the\nWaterfront portion of land, which is not shown on this parcel map.\nPresident Zuppan closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the developer is still amenable to providing the field.\nSean Whiskeman, Catellus, stated that contact with Miracle League has been maintained and\nCatellus has committed a significant financial contribution to them.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the parcel maps as proposed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nMotion carries 6-0.\n9-C\nBay Friendly Landscape Ordinance Amendments. A Public Hearing to Consider an\nAmendment to the City of Alameda Municipal Code, Article IV (Subsections 30-58.1 - 30-60.5)\nrelated to Water Conservation and Bay Friendly Landscape Requirements.\nAndrew Thomas gave a brief presentation of the proposed amendment.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that the language in the landscaping plans is\npermissive; and she asked if the language will be changed to state that bay friendly landscaping\nis mandatory, and practices shall be applied.\nMr. Thomas responded in the affirmative.\nPresident Zuppan asked if the ordinance applies retroactively to projects, like Catellus, who\nhave already received approval.\nMr. Thomas stated that the ordinance will not apply retroactively which is the general rule for all\nnew ordinances.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the Bay Friendly Ordinance will preclude anything in the\nUrban Farming Ordinance that the City is currently working on.\nMr. Thomas answered that the overall landscape plan should conserve water.\nMaria DiMeglio, Environmental Specialist Public Works, responded that with urban farming\nevery crop requires a different amount of water and trees are watered differently from nearby\nplants.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 10, "text": "Board member Knox White commented that it should be very clear with the Urban Farming\nOrdinance. He stated that the Park Plan that Council will review on May 15 identifies farming\nuses in the belt-line, and that might be something the Board wants to exempt\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that one of the purposes called out is the ordinance is to\nsupport EBMUD in its efforts to promote and implement water conservation measures.\nMr. Thomas stated that staff will work with StopWaste.org on how to integrate urban farming\ninto the community.\nPresident Zuppan stated that urban farming is really important and knowing how it is integrated\ninto the community and complies with EBMUD's policies is important.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve with direction as noted regarding Urban Farms.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion\nMotion carries 6-0.\n9-D Initial Review and Opportunity for Public Comment on Preliminary Plans for\nredevelopment of the properties at 1600 Park Street.\nBoard member Burton recused himself because he has a business relationship with the\napplicant.\nAndrew Thomas gives brief presentation\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda resident, stated he likes the plans and thanked the team for\ndeveloping such a proposal. Expressed concern about the orientation of the building and\nhaving it conform more to the configuration of the gore lot. He suggested that it might be better\nto have an entrance at the corner of Tilden and Park, which would give the building a flatiron\nlook, which would be a very striking structure. He also suggested that the sidewalk on Tilden be\nwidened from 10 feet to at least 12 feet to match the sidewalk width on Park Street.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated that the plans look good, the building is handsome, and the\narchitecture speaks well to the Marketplace building and other historic buildings throughout\nAlameda. He stated that on the perspective for the front of the building, it looks as though there\nis park space or terrace on either side of entry drive, but on the plans it looks like very small\nsidewalk on one side and a walkway with a small tree on the other side. He suggested that the\narea could be integrated better. He also suggested that it would be better to integrate and\nshare the parking with the Marketplace, allowing only one entrance off of Park Street instead of\ntwo.\nMr. Thomas replied that the buildings, PAD A, and PAD B have a current parking ratio of a little\nmore than 4 per 1000 square feet, which is the minimum parking code for retail. The\nMarketplace site has a much smaller ratio. Going to one curb cut, as suggested would make a\nhuge difference.\nJamie Keating with Foley Street Investments answered that PAD B is a modular building\ndesigned for up to four different units. Currently Foley Street Investments is looking at three\nunits. PAD A is designed for a CVS.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 11, "text": "Board member Knox White said that the windows on Park Street are display windows, not real\nwindows, which is problematic. He stated that the Planning Board needs to start thinking about\nthe City's urban design; what we want to see and how we want the City to grow, especially north\nof Lincoln. He indicated that he has significant circulation issues with the plans; the new curb\ncut between the buildings is opposite of what is the Gateway Plan calls for, which is to remove\ncurb cuts on Park Street and healing the auto orientation north of Lincoln. He stated that the\ndrive-thru pharmacy window is problematic, and it looks like an extension to Pacific is being built\nright through the middle of the buildings. He stated he would like to see more frontage on Park\nStreet and see the gap between the project and Marketplace closed. He also would prefer\nfewer curb cuts.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft echoed that the buildings are nice and that the architects have\ndone well with trying to tie these buildings in to the character of that street. She stated that the\nstretch of Park Street is very busy and she would prefer that a driveway entrance not be\nincluded on Park Street. She is not opposed to having two entrances. Although she is not a fan\nof drive through pharmacy windows, she understands the need to balance competing factors.\nAlso she would like to see Tilden Way safer for pedestrians and cyclists.\nBoard member Henneberry stated the buildings look good. He concurred that we would like\nBuilding A to have real windows. He shared Mr. Buckley's thoughts regarding the building\norientation and giving it a \"flat-iron\" look.\nPresident Zuppan stated that she also thinks the buildings are beautiful. She concurred with the\ncomments of honoring the Form Based Code for North Park Street, and stated that in a retail\narea, real windows are very important.\nGreg Klein, Architect with John Malick and Associates, the building designers, addressed the\ndifferent styles between PAD A and B. He stated that all the buildings along Park Street have\nan eclectic feel because the buildings were built at different times.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she appreciates their effort to make the buildings tie in with\nexisting buildings on Park Street and asked Mr. Klein if the Board can expect to see real\nwindows.\nMr. Klein responded that he will take the request for real windows back to the clients.\nPresident Zuppan stated that part of the Form Based Code is to get the business entrances\nonto the street.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft replied that she does not have a problem with having a second\nentrance at the back of the building near the parking lot.\nPresident Zuppan stated that the Board required the Bridgeside Shopping Center to place\nwindows and doors all along the water and entrances on the other side of the buildings, near the\nparking were allowed to remain. She stated that no one walks along the waterfront side unless\nthey are walking their dog. She concluded by stating the single entrance at the front of the\nbuilding is a key issues in making the center more viable and it follows the Form Based Code.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-14", "page": 12, "text": "None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member Knox White stated that a number of people are asking what's happening with\nAlameda Landing and when is it happening. He stated that he is not able to answer those\nquestions and would like a checklist of the key things that have to happen, in the general order\nof what is being approved next, etc. He also asked for a status update on the Boatworks\nproject, especially in terms of the blight.\nMr. Thomas stated that City is pursuing code enforcement on Boatworks very strongly.\nMs. Faiz replied that a preliminary injunction is in place and the permanent injunction\ntrial date is scheduled for September.\nMs. Faiz responded that there are no concerns with Brown Act violations.\nBoard member Knox White stated that he and board member Ezzy Ashcraft attended\nthe Shoreline Bike Lane meeting on Thursday. He commended the Public Works\ndepartment for hosting such a good process.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft concurred and said that the Board should speak with the\nPublic Works Director on how to get community members to attend meetings. She\nstated the Shoreline Drive Bike project is an important meeting that all should be\nfollowing. She stated that she and board member Knox White also attended the\nHousing Element, Design Review, and Regional Housing Needs Allocation workshops\nhosted by the League of California Cities in San Jose.\nMr. Thomas concurred with that suggestion and stated he recently walked the Grand\nMarina Project with the first approved Paseo area, and it was great to see how things\nturned out, and see what worked and didn't work\nBoard member Henneberry asked that staff look at the large format language and\naddress the feasibility of reducing the 30,000 square foot trigger for a conditional use\npermit to 15,000 square feet.\nMr. Thomas replied that staff will look at the scheduling.\nPresident Zuppan stated that she hopes more bike racks will be installed on Park Street\nbecause there is one rack for the entire block, and no place to park bicycles near the\ncoffee shops\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n13. ADJOURNMENT:\n10:57 p.m.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 12\nMay 14, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-14.pdf"}