{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nWEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012\n1. CONVENE\n7:03 p.m.\n2. FLAG SALUTE: Board Member Henneberry\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Zuppan, Vice-President Burton, Board members\nEzzy Ashcraft, Henneberry, Knox White; K\u00f6ster (arrived at 7:10\np.m.)\n4. MINUTES:\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of April 9, 2012\nBoard member Henneberry motioned to approve minutes as amended\nBoard member Burton seconded motion\nMotion carried 4-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of April 23, 2012\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve minutes as amended\nBoard member Henneberry seconded motion\nMotion carried 5-0, 1 abstention, Board member Knox White\nMinutes from the Regular meeting of May 14, 2012 (Pending)\n5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager stated that the applicant for item 9D has\nrequested to be moved up on the agenda.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked where the agenda item would be moved to.\nPresident Zuppan answered that the placement of the item depends on the board\nmember who makes the motion.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to re-order the agenda items to the following: 9A,\n9C, 9D, and 9B.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded motion.\nMotion carries 5-0, no abstentions.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 2, "text": "6.A. Future Agendas\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, provided an overview of upcoming\nprojects.\n7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the five-minute time limit.\nNONE\n8. CONSENT 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.\nNONE\n9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n9-A 1716 Webster Street. Design Review and Zoning Text Amendment- PLN10-0153 -\nDelong Liu. Alteration of a gas station/convenience store use in the C-C, Community\nCommercial Zone. Proposed project includes a proposed zoning text amendment to\nallow reduced setback requirements for gas station convenience stores and Design\nReview for the construction of a new 2,575 sq ft convenience store with reduced off-\nstreet parking.\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked when the appeal will go to City Council.\nMr. Thomas answered in July, and he will advise the Board of the precise date.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the Zoning Amendments are adopted by City\nCouncil will the City will retain the ability to require an applicant to abide by certain\nrequests, i.e. maintain a certain setback or a specific building height, even if the original\ndrawing is in compliance with the zoning amendments.\nMr. Thomas replied that the City does retain a certain amount of control, via the design\nreview process.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the City has sufficient design guidelines on Webster\nStreet to insist that an applicant adhere to certain requirements by the Board and staff.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Thomas answered that guidelines are not required to approve a project, but findings\nwith supporting evidence are required.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked what the actual side yard setback for the house on\nWebster Street is.\nMr Thomas responded that the side yard setback is approximately three feet and\ndefinitely fewer than five feet and the setback for the front yard is less than 20 feet.\nDave Franklin, property owner on Buena Vista, during public comment stated that he\nwould prefer to see plan A1.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was pleased to see the project come back and\nthanked the architect for presenting four plans for review. She stated she concurs with\nstaff and prefers Plan B1 (Option 2).\nBoard member Knox White stated he will support either Plan A1 or Plan B1. He stated\nthat before choosing a plan, the Board really needs to think about what they would like\nto see on Webster Street.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he agrees with the wording of the text amendment and\nprefers Plan B1 with at least a 5 foot setback. He stated he would like to see another\noption showing the extension to the street while keeping the 30 foot elevation.\nVice President Burton thanked the architect and applicant for agreeing to the\ncontinuation and staff for working through the process. He stated he agrees with the\ntext amendment, stating it gives adequate flexibility.\nPresident Zuppan concurred with the comments by the Board. She expressed concern\nregarding pedestrian safety for customers walking from the pump to the convenience\nstore and having to walk in front of the Webster Street entrance.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the circulation of vehicles and if\nthey are able to enter and exit from Webster Street.\nMr. Hoy responded that they have not finalized the circulation pattern with Public Works\nfor entering and exiting the station.\nMr. Thomas stated currently the gas station can be entered from Webster Street.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated, pedestrians will have to be cognizant of vehicles.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that her concern is that the pedestrian safety between the\npump and the convenience store is addressed.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 4, "text": "Board member Knox White stated that Plan B1 is the preferred option to provide\nclearance for the windows and suggested that setbacks be required specifically where\nthe adjacent buildings windows are, and not the entire length of the property.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if the residential building next door, which is historic, can\nbe torn down, and inquired if it's owner has spoken with staff regarding the project.\nMr. Thomas stated that the building is historic and there is a demolition process for\nhistoric properties.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Board's direction to staff, when bringing this\nback for review, should include the landscaping plans.\nMr. Thomas stated that commercial buildings on the main corridor are reviewed and\napproved by the Planning Board and that the landscaping will be included in the plans\nwhen staff presents the design review to the Board. He clarified that the only reason\nstaff suggested that the board not review the design again is because the board has\nreviewed the plans twice.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to approve the staff recommendation with the\nflexibility that Plan B1's design be allowed to explore the \"bulb outs,\" or other design\noptions around the wing-walls to protect the windows and lighting of the house next\ndoor, that landscape plans be included in the design review plans, and that the design\nbe brought back to the Board for approval.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion.\nVice President Burton stated that the Board needs to be very careful with how specific\nstaff direction is in regards to the \"bulb-outs\" and that the architect needs flexibility. He\nstated that staff and the architect have a good sense of what the Board wants and\ndoesn't think that the Board needs to be very explicit in their direction to staff and the\narchitect.\nBoard member Knox White replied that it is important that the Board be explicit in their\ndirection, because Plan B1 has a 5 foot setback. He stated that If the Board asks staff\nto look at building within the 5 foot setback; it is confusing to make a recommendation\nfor a setback without saying its okay to \"play around\" in the setback a little bit as long as\nthe spirit of the purpose for the 5 foot setback is achieved.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 5, "text": "Vice President Burton suggested that the language state a 5 foot setback with provision\nthat the interface at Webster Street can be occupied by a piece of building that is\ndesigned to be proportional to the building and does not obstruct the windows on the\nadjacent building. He stated that the building should not touch the front porch of the\nhouse and both buildings need breathing room in order to fit well on their lots. He\nreiterated that he wants to leave staff and the architect a lot of flexibility to properly work\nthrough the set back.\nBoard member Knox White affirmed that the intent in the motion is to allow staff and the\narchitect the flexibility to build within the 5 foot setback, while protecting the lighting and\nwindows on the adjacent property.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he accepts the clarifications to second the motion.\nMotion carried 6 - 0; no, abstentions.\nMr. Thomas stated, the zoning text amendment and the appeal will move forward to City\nCouncil. Staff will work with the application for the design review process and will bring\nthe design review application for board approval.\nPresident Zuppan thanked Mr. Hoy for his flexibility and thanked Laura Ajello for her\nhard work.\n9-C 2130 South Shore Center PLN12-0021 - Applicant: Jamestown Properties\n-\nAmendment to the Sign Program for South Shore Center. The Planning Board will hold\na public hearing to consider an amendment to the existing sign program at 2130 South\nShore Center (formerly known as Alameda Towne Center)\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, gave a brief presentation.\nVice President Burton commented that the dock or \"shore-like\" design of the signs does\nnot have any relation to the actual design of the buildings.\nBoard member Knox White stated that he would like to see that the floodlights don't\nreflect back into the residential buildings across the street.\nCarol Gottstein, during public comment stated, that A-frame signs are helpful for people\nwho have a hard time walking or are disabled. She requested that the A-frame signs be\nused or an alternative sign at pedestrian level be.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he is impartial to Exhibit A the post-sign. He concurred\nwith Vice President Burton stating the Exhibit B signs seem dated and inappropriate.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 6, "text": "Board member Henneberry stated the name change is a step in the right direction. He\nexplained that the \"log-like\" posts are called piles and they hold up docks, so they never\ngo out of style.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated she disagrees with board member K\u00f6ster and Ms.\nGottstein and opposes the A-frame signs. She explained that while on a site visit she\nobserved that the A-frame signs impeded the area where shoppers are walking and\npresent a tripping hazard.\nPresident Zuppan stated that she likes that the signs tie into the shoreline and the\nbeach, and she likes the trellising, which is classic in appearance and seen throughout\nthe facility.\nTodd Falduti, Center Manager Jamestown Properties, stated that all non-approved\nsignage such as literature racks, bug-wing signs, and a-frames were creating visual\nclutter and were removed from use when Jamestown Properties gained control.\nBoard member Knox White stated he wants to make sure that the lights are lit from a\ndirection to prohibit reflection.\nMr. Falduti replied that they will work with Aero Signs to help address technical issues\nsuch as light reflection.\nBoard member Knox White clarified that the A-frame signs are for special events only.\nMr. Falduti replied in the affirmative stating that Jamestown owns the signs, and that\nretailers must request use of the signs for a specified amount of time (i.e. a 3-day sale).\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a limit to how many A-frame signs will be\nplaced around the center at any given time.\nMr. Falduti replied that the center has not yet specified a limit to the amount of A-frame\nsigns. He estimates that no more than 20 signs will be provided and that should\naccommodate the sales, special events, directions, etc. He stated he would like to have\nthe flexibility to provide the signage as needed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft clarified if there will be specifications on how far away\nfrom the buildings the A-frame signs can be.\nMr. Falduti, stated that new pylon signs have been placed at all the entrances, which\ndirects people into the center.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can now support the A-frame signs.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Falduti addressed the concerns raised by the Board in regards to the actual\naesthetics of the signs stating they would have graphics redesign based on the boards\ncomments.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft motioned to approve the sign program as amended.\nBoard member Henneberry seconded the motion.\nBoard member Burton, during discussion, stated he will vote \"no\" to express his\ndispleasure with some of the graphics.\nPresident Zuppan asked staff if the changes made to the signs will come back for\nreview.\nMr. Thomas answered that the Board can approve the signs as is, or approve the\nmotion on the floor.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that if the signs are changed in response to Board\ncomments, then the signs will come back for review.\nBoard member Knox White stated he will vote for the motion.\nMotion carried five - one; no abstentions. (Ayes: Zuppan, Henneberry, Ezzy Ashcraft,\nKnox White, K\u00f6ste; : Noes: Burton)\n9-D Review and Comment on Proposal for 1600 Park Street-Applicant: Foley Street\nInvestments LLC. The Planning Board will review and comment on a proposal to build\ntwo new retail buildings at 1600 Park Street.\nBoard member Burton recused himself\nPlanning Services Manager Andrew Thomas gave a brief presentation.\nKen Carvalho, Foley Street Investment, gave a brief presentation.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she met with partners from Foley Street\nInvestments and stated that not every tree in the Master Tree Plan needs to be used.\nMr. Carvalho stated that the intent is to group trees together.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 8, "text": "President Zuppan stated that with Form-Based Code, if something were to happen,\nwhatever was in that building could come out and something else could go in. She\nasked if a tenant wanted to replace the window box with a real window, if the boxes are\nconstructed in such a way to allow that.\nMr. Carvalho replied that the window boxes are real windows and the boxes can be\ntaken out and used as either a \"real window\" or as doors.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Park Street door will always be a door that is\naccessible or if that door will serve solely as an emergency exit.\nMr. Carvalho replied that Foley Street Investment prefers that as a condition of approval\nfor the use permit, that the two doors remain unlocked and accessible during business\nhours.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that the windows along Park Street can be converted into\ndoors later on if necessary.\nMr. Carvalho replied in the affirmative.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the use and design need to fit the street and\nsince this is a downtown street, pedestrians should be able to see the activity going on\ninside the business and not business advertisement.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the windows that face the Pacific Street \"cut-\nthrough\" are real or if they are box windows.\nMr. Carvalho answered that those are box windows.\nBoard member Knox White asked if the only natural light available in the building is\ncoming through the two doors.\nMr. Carvalho replied that natural light is provided by the doors as well as the top of the\narched windows.\nJamie Keating, Foley Street Investment, encouraged the Board to look at the project is\nan entire block, starting at the Marketplace and extending down to the new CVS\nbuilding.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the drive-through pharmacy window is not a\nforegone conclusion and the parking circulation would be improved by removing the\ndrive-through. She stated that CASA limits drive through businesses because of\nexhaust and fumes generated from idling motors.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Carvalho replied that some medical insurance providers do not cover both\nWalgreens and CVS.\nMr. Keating stated that CVS is motivated to move to this site because a more efficient\noperation can be developed.\nPresident Zuppan asked if the flat iron design on the corner has been discussed with\nPublic Works, citing a similar issue with a nearby building.\nMr. Carvalho stated that the corner radius issues have been discussed with Public\nWorks who have determined that a 25 foot radius is preferred for pedestrian safety and\ntraffic flow.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the drivers parked in the handicapped spaces for\nPAD A (CVS) will be backing out into the line of traffic created by entering from Park\nStreet.\nMr. Carvalho stated that the drivers will back out of the handicap spaces into that traffic.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she has concerns with cars backing out of\nspaces directly into the traffic entering off of Park Street because Park Street is so busy.\nMr. Carvalho replied that disabled parking spaces cannot be made in the public right-of-\nway. Handicapped parking is also close to the door to prevent and additional area of\ntraffic having to be crossed.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the handicapped parking spaces can be\nmoved closer to the door nearest the parking lot if the drive-through pharmacy window\nis removed.\nPresident Zuppan asked if a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) has a term, like a\nlease.\nMr. Carvalho replied that usually REAs are in perpetuity; however some terminate after\na certain number of years. He stated that that they are attempting to negotiate an REA\nwith a term of 15-20 years\nBoard member Knox White reported that he met with the applicants. He stated that he\nis struggling with the request to approve inactive windows along Park Street.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked staff what street the actual front of the building faces.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Thomas replied that the staff has only considered the front and side of the building\nfor set-back requirements.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked if there has been any consideration to build a third\nstructure on the site.\nMr. Carvalho replied that a third structure is not a viable because the minimum number\nof required parking spaces is determined by the building's square footage.\nJosh Eisenhut, Armstrong Development, stated that the project is an opportunity to\nimprove CVS' business and also correct some issues.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that since the site plan significantly deviates from\nother stores, and building is occurring in a historic downtown, then the project should fit\ninto the location.\nMr. Eisenhut replied that in order for the project to be viable, the business has to be\nprofitable.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft asked what the square footage of the current CVS store is\nand whether it is comparable in size to the proposed location\nMr. Eisenhut replied that the current store is just over 16,000 square feet, and the\nproposed site is 15,000 with the flat-iron design or 14,500 with the square design.\nCarol Gottstein, during public comment stated that the name \"Alameda Station\" seems\nboring, and she is concerned that it will be as resented as the name \"Alameda Towne\nCenter.\" She suggested renaming the development to \"Tilden Station\" or \"North of\nLincoln Station,\" something that would be more geographically identifiable.\nMr. Keating replied that the name \"Alameda Station\" commemorates the historic\nAlameda train Station, which was located at that site.\nBoard member Knox White stated that it is an exciting project but he wants the Board to\nbe mindful of the plans that are being approved so he is not willing to fast-track the\napproval process.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster stated he also met with Foley Street Investments. He said an\nentrance on the corner of Park and Tilden makes sense in terms of Park Street events.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the development needs to be pedestrian friendly\nand accessible by automobile.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 11, "text": "President Zuppan stated that she is excited for the project, likes the design and building\nstyle and is interested to see how the flat-iron concept will work with the style She\nshared that she is more comfortable making some of the decisions, because the\ndevelopers are local, active community members.\nNo action required\nMr. Thomas stated that staff will continue to work with applicants on the remaining\nissues.\n9-B Consideration of Proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement Plan's\nconsistency with the City of Alameda General Plan. The Planning Board will make a\ndetermination as to whether the proposed Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement\nPlan is consistent with the City of Alameda's General Plan.\nBarbara Hawkins, City Engineer, gave a brief presentation.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster requested clarification on the term \"sinking fund\".\nMs. Hawkins replied that a \"sinking fund\" is an account that accumulates money for a\nnumber of years. She stated that the project would not be done right away, but money\nwould be put aside for it.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster asked for clarification on how the projects are ranked and if all\nthe projects have been ranked.\nMs. Hawkins stated that each category has points associated with the projects\noutcome.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster referenced the \"Trash Debris and Vegetation Removal of the\nAlameda Beltline Property\" project and asked if the City has considered using\nvolunteers to help with projects similar to these thereby saving money.\nMs Hawkins replied that the City does host \"Coastal Clean up Days\" and a number of\nsimilar volunteer days. She stated there is higher risk associated with the Beltline\nproject which includes power garden tools.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 12, "text": "comments listed below are to provide guidance and direction for future reports. He said\nhe hopes in the future the reports are presented earlier, so there is an opportunity to ask\nquestions. He stated the project ratings does not make sensed, and doesn't appear to\nhave any internal consistency to it, and there doesn't appear to be much discussion on\nhow the items interact. He said he would like to see the project scores. He requested\nclarification between the \"Maintenance\" (Storm Drain Maintenance, New Street\nSweeping Signs) list and the \"Project\" (Ballena Bay Bridge Major Maintenance, Crack\nand Slurry Seal Maintenance on Roads) list, and how one is distinguishes from the\nother. He stated that after reviewing the project list it appears to only be maintenance\nprojects, not new projects. He requested more clarity and consistency with the\nreporting, and include the plans from the general policy that are applicable to the listed\nprojects. He stated that staff should have all the required information provided to make\nthe requested determinations. He requested that projects that don't make the list be\nlisted separately, but in addition to project list, for follow up purposes.\nPresident Zuppan clarified that the ratings were used to develop the first cuts of all the\nprojects for CIP, those projects were then discussed my project manager, and the\nprojects that made the top cut would be prioritized based on funding sources, city\nbudget, and other elements. So the scoring was first cut scores.\nMs. Hawkins added that the City Manager then reviewed the proposed projects and\ndetermined final project priority.\nPresident Zuppan stated that explaining more of the process used to determine project\npriority would help the Board in their understanding of the item while reviewing.\nVice President Burton concurred with board member Knox White's comments, stating\nthis is about a process of communication. He said it is important to design the reports\nfor the people who are going to be making the decisions, and provide all the information\nneeded in order to analyze the reports and make valid decisions. He stated it would be\nnice to see if projects are compliant with the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection\n(LAPCP). He asked if the projects are listed in order of ranking or priority\nMr. Thomas stated that there are policies in the General Plan that are closely related to\nthe LAPCP such as environmental protection and air quality improvements, and there is\ntalk about adopting the LAPCP as an amendment to the General Plan.\nMs. Hawkins stated that the projects are not listed in the order of their ranking.\nVice President Burton concurred that providing a list of projects that did not make a list\nwould be helpful.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 12 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 13, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft addressed the comment about the list being all\nmaintenance projects instead of new projects. She stated that maintenance and upkeep\nare necessary to prevent deterioration, and it is cheaper to maintain, than to build new.\nShe stated she never realized how much Public Works does throughout the City. And\nthat reason why more projects aren't being done is because of the City's financial\ncondition. She echoed the comments regarding the content and format of the reports\nPresident Zuppan reiterated that describing the process more thoroughly, and including\nwhy each project is compliant with the General Plan would help Board make the\nrequested determinations. She also stated that providing information about how the\nrankings were determined would be useful. She cited the Climate Change presentation\nthat discussed how water coming into the sewer system will affect the City, and asked if\nany of the priority projects listed address the concerns mentioned in that presentation, in\nterms of the analysis or the actual work to change those structures\nMs. Hawkins replied that the Storm Drain Master Plan project which includes looking at\nthe 55 inch sea level rise addressed issues in the Climate Change Presentation. She\nsaid a model was created, the affects of an 18 inch rise was studied, and now the\nconsultant will study the affects of a 55 inch rise. She said once the entire structure\nhas been mapped, the consultants will be able to determine where the water is coming\nin, and staff will be able to determine if gates or berms need to be added. She said now\nthat the model is in place the infrastructure can be studied\nPresident Zuppan clarified that the core information studies can be now be done to\ndetermine that the right, long term solution is applied.\nMs. Hawkins stated that the initial approach would include looking at solutions such as\nupsizing pipes rather than installing a berm.\nPresident Zuppan asked to what extent this type of work coordinated with AMP, if it is\noutside of the CIP process, and if projects are discussed prior to implementation.\nMs. Hawkins replied that AMP works with a different board for decisions, which is\noutside of the CIP process. She stated that AMP and Public Works share upcoming\nprojects at utility meetings, where they discuss impact reduction.\nPresident Zuppan asked what the pink paint on the sidewalk means.\nMs. Hawkins replied that pink paint is for City sidewalk projects usually necessary\nbecause of city trees. The particular project in question is work that will be done on the\nCity sidewalks as a result of uplift from street trees in the median. The white paint is\nproperty owner repair responsibility due to other deterioration in the sidewalk, possibly\nfrom private property.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 13 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-05-30", "page": 14, "text": "Vice President Burton motioned to continue the meeting for an additional 15 minutes.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster seconded the motion\nMotioned carried 5-0; no abstentions\nMatt Naclerio, Public Works Director, stated that sidewalk repair work will usually take\nplace within 30 days of being marked with pink paint. After the temporary repair the\nlocation is placed on a permanent list, and that list currently has a 4- 5 year period.\nThey will attempt to double the number of permanent repairs this year. The white paint\nis property owner responsibility. Owners receive a notice and have 60 days to repair\nthe sidewalk.\nBoard member Knox White motioned to make the determination of consistency with the\nGeneral Plan\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion\nMotion carried 5-0; no abstentions\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or\nmake a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral\nto staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body\nat a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the Chair, direct staff to\nplace a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nNone\n12. ADJOURNMENT\n10:59 p.m.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 14 of 14\nMay 30, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-05-30.pdf"}