{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JULY 13, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:04 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard Member Tang led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Henneberry, Vice President Alvarez and\nBoard Members Knox White, K\u00f6ster, Tang and Zuppan.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: None\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A. 2015-1869\nPLN14-0701 - 2100 Clement Avenue - Applicant: City Ventures.\nPublic Hearing to consider a draft Vesting Tentative Map, Density\nBonus Application, Development Plan, and Design Review to Permit\nConstruction of 52 Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located at 2100\nClement Avenue. The proposal is categorically exempt from further\nreview under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Development Projects.\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, introduced revisions to the project including the\nVesting Tentative Map, new park design, reduction in guest parking from 12 to 7 spaces,\nand architectural design. Staff recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Map and\nDevelopment Plan. However, the architectural design revision was not complete and staff\nrecommended a condition of approval requiring that the revised architectural design be\ncompleted for Planning Board review and approval before any building permits are\nissued.\nBoard Member Knox White asked Mr. Thomas whether the Design Review included\nreview of the park design. Mr. Thomas said it did.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMr. Mike McDonough, of Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the project\nand said the project would positively affect business. He said the revised proposal fits in\nwell with the Alameda Housing Element.\nMs. Dorothy Freeman, resident, spoke in favor of the project. She emphasized the open\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 2, "text": "space design would encourage interaction in the community and was pleased with the\nparking revisions. She would like to see increased setbacks, stronger language in the\nresolution to protect street trees, and community involvement in the Design Review. She\nrecommended delaying planned resurfacing until the project is complete.\nMr. Christopher Buckley, of Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, said the project\nwould be an asset to Alameda. He submitted a letter to the Board which listed AAPS's\nconcerns, including setbacks being too small and language in conditions of approval\nregarding building footprints. He said he would like language in resolution indicate that\nthe building footprints are not locked in and wanted Board to defer action until new design\ncame in.\nMr. Scott, Bay Farm Island resident, was in favor of the project and asked the Board to\napprove it unanimously. He said he would like to see newer homes in Alameda to buy in\nthe future.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked Mr. Thomas whether the building footprint would be locked\nin. Mr. Thomas replied that the conditions of approval require Design Review and\nchanges in the footprint can be considered.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster proceeded to thank the applicant for listening to previous concerns\nand coming up with a better plan. He said the challenges for this project were well\naddressed in the CC&Rs and that he felt comfortable with the setbacks. He was ready to\nmove on and approve the project.\nBoard Member Tang agreed with Board Member K\u00f6ster. He asked Mr. Thomas whether\nthe applicant can revisit the parking design to expand it. Mr. Thomas said it would be\ndifficult because with the new park design there is not much space left.\nBoard Member Knox White was also ready to approve the plan. He asked Mr. Thomas\nwhether the Street Tree Plan would be brought back to the Planning Board for approval\nif trees do need to be removed. Mr. Thomas said it would.\nBoard Member Knox White said he had a problem with the strict rules and financial\npenalties in resolution item 11D because people should not be restricted on how they use\ntheir garages and the City would have to enforce it. He wanted to limit what HOA can\ngovern to common areas.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked for clarification on the Pedestrian Walkway Sections on\npage L-2 and on the Universal Design aspect of the plan. Mr. Thomas explained that the\nsection is showing a bike/ped walkway away from cars on the east side of the\ndevelopment which does not go across to the school but the applicant is in conversation\nwith the school to allow cut through. Board Member Zuppan asked if fire trucks can go\nthrough.\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Thomas said that the fire department has reviewed the plans. He explained that the\neight universal design units are easily ADA accessible, having ground floor bedrooms\nand minimum 32 inch primary doorways, and four of the eight do not have steps to enter\n(the other four have one step).\nBoard Member Zuppan wanted to ensure that homeowners are notified that the park their\nHOA dues pay for are open to the public. She indicated including language in resolution\nthat would support those who do not have two cars to be able to use their garages to the\nfullest extent.\nBoard Member Alvarez asked if the emphasis in the Tree Plan was only to keep mature\ntrees. Mr. Thomas said the goal is to keep all trees and that there will be a public notice\nif any trees will be removed. Board Member Alvarez was in agreement with Board\nMember Knox White regarding item 11D. She was in favor of the project.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve the project with the exception of\nresolution item 11D and to include language that HOA cannot control color, or block ADA\nramps. Board Member K\u00f6ster second the motion.\nThe motion carried, 6-0.\n7-B. PLN14-0305 - 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel.\nPublic hearing for a Final Development Plan and Design Review to allow the\nconstruction of a 100-room hotel on the Harbor Bay Business Park shoreline. This\nproject is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant\nto CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - Infill Development Projects.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster recused himself from this project because of his association with\nSB Architects. The Board called for a short break and verified that Board Member Tang\nwas not within 500' radius of the project.\nMr. Thomas introduced the proposal for the Marriot Fairfield Inn at the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park. He said this was the third time the Planning Board was reviewing this\nproject. The first time was in February and there were issues with the site plan, parking\nplan and with the architecture. The second time was in April in which the applicants\nidentified changes to address parking and set back. The revised parking matched\nneighboring hotels which have adjacent shared parking and the site plan had been\nchanged as well. The applicants replaced the original architect team with SB Architects\nsince the last revision. The project provides service by Harbor Bay shuttle and private\nhotel shuttle to the Oakland Airport, Park Street, and the ferry terminal. Mr. Thomas said\nthat staff was recommending approval.\nMr. Greg Lehman gave a presentation on the revised design concept.\nBoard Member Tang asked if the adjacent parking lot is owned by the hotel. Mr. Thomas\nanswered that is not and clarified that it is shared parking with a permanent agreement\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 4, "text": "that the hotel leases from the neighboring business.\nBoard Member Tang asked whether the conference room square footage was\nconsidered in the calculation for parking. Mr. Thomas said that parking calculations were\nbased on room count only and that this is a typically way of calculating hotel parking and\nmentioned it has never been a problem in other places. Board Member Tang said he\nwas concerned that the conference room square footage was not counted in the parking\ncalculations.\nPresident Henneberry said that parking concerns had been an issue from early on and\nthat the agreement is not set in perpetuity. He asked what would happen to the adjacent\nparking agreement if in the future the area reached full build out. Mr. Thomas answered\nthat the hotel would still need to provide parking.\nPresident Henneberry asked if shared parking across the street from a site had ever\nbeen done in Alameda. Mr. Thomas answered that it has been done twice in Alameda\nand it has worked for both projects.\nBoard Member Tang asked if the height of the hotel has any special foundation\nrequirements. Mr. Thomas said yes and that those issues are handled by the building\ndivision and emphasized that the project must meet all geo-technical requirements.\nBoard Member Knox White appreciated the applicant addressing the previous parking\nissues but that the architectural design did not look very special. He was prepared to\nmove forward with approval. He asked whether 18\" above existing grade was the\nstandard height to accommodate the potential for sea level rise. Mr. Thomas said he was\nnot sure.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she appreciated the applicant's revisions. She was hoping\nfor a design that was more impressive. She asked if item 10 in the resolution regarding\noff-site shared parking was a condition of approval. Mr. Thomas responded that it was\nand that the hotel must maintain additional parking and that the applicant must provide\na copy of the signed reciprocal parking agreement in order to obtain their Certificate of\nOccupancy.\nPresident Henneberry questioned how the hotel qualifies for the CEQA Infill\nDevelopment Project exemption. Mr. Thomas explained that in order to qualify for that\nexemption the project must be consistent with the City's general plan, occur on a site\nless than five acres, surrounded by urban uses, and have no major environmental\nimpacts. Since the project is in the business park and meets all of the requirements,\nit\nclearly qualifies for the urban infill exemption. He added that the entire business park\nhas a full EIR conducted previously.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMr. Michael McDonough, of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, commended the\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 5, "text": "project's process and said it was a beautiful design considering what was feasibly\nfeasible. He said meeting space in the business park is scares and that the hotel would\nserve that need. He added that the shuttles to Park Street would benefit the business\ncommunity and that the transit occupancy tax is a great for the city. He also stated that\nRam Hotels have a good reputation as a community partner.\nMs. Teresa Cheng, Ms. Melody Li, and Mr. Wiley Cooper, of United Here 2850 opposed\nthe project. Their concerns were regarding limited service hotel's poor working\nconditions, minimum wages, and limited benefits\nMr. Ed Choi opposed the project. He had an issue with the shared parking condition\nbecause the shared parking the hotel plans to lease belongs to his office development.\nHe said the project is too massive, too tall, and that landscaping is lacking.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member Tang asked why there are fewer parking spaces than the ratio. Mr.\nThomas responded that the code encourages reduction in parking if they include\nmechanisms to reduce car use and the proposed service meets this classification.\nBoard member Tang reiterated that he had a problem with the conference room not being\ncounted in the parking requirement calculation because people using the hotel for\nconferences will not use the shuttles.\nBoard Member Knox said that the parking determination was developed via parking\nstudies not by planners making up parking numbers. He said staff did a lot of work to\narrive at this recommendation.\nBoard Member Zuppan said the findings fit with the business park and that she supported\nthe project.\nBoard Member Alvarez supported the project with the conditions.\nPresident Henneberry said that an okay design was not acceptable and that the bar was\nbeing set too low. He did not support the project.\nBoard Member Knox motioned to approve the project with the condition that staff adjust\nthe language in the resolution to indicate that reciprocal parking is an ongoing\nrequirement. Also the building finished floor height must meet the same standards as\nthe Alameda Point Site A buildings, 24 inches above the existing grade. Board Member\nAlvarez second the motion.\nThe motion carried, 5-1.\n7-C. PLN14-0134 - 1200 Park Street - Applicant: Gary Voss for Big-O Tires. The\napplicant requests an amendment to an existing Use Permit (UP88-36) for 1200\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 6, "text": "Park Street. This project is determined to be Categorically Exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15301, Existing Facilities.\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report. Big-O's use of public parking has had adverse\neffects on neighboring businesses and residents. The City has received 171 petitions\nagainst and 518 letters of support.\nStaff recommended modifying the existing use permit conditions to:\n1. Delete Condition #1 requiring all work to be performed within enclosed structures.\n2. Amend Condition #2 to indicate \"the use of public parking spaces for the storage\nof cars waiting for service or for customer pick up is a violation of this use permit.\nReceipt of three verifiable violations of this condition shall be grounds for City Staff\nto immediately schedule a public hearing before the Planning Board to consider\nrevocation or modification of this use permit\"\n3. Retain Condition #5 requiring a sign directing customers to turn right toward Park\nStreet.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked for details on Big-O's valet service. Mr. Guido Bertoli, Big-\nO Tires owner, explained that Big-O employees pick up and drop off cars to be served at\nthe resident's home. This service is provided daily in an effort to relieve stress on public\nparking.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster pointed out that according to a complaint letter the City received,\nmeter maids were not ticketing Big-O cars parked in metered spots. Ms. Kathleen\nLivermore, City staff, commented that the City has not confirmed that statement.\nBoard Member Tang said that when people leave their cars for service at Big-O they shop\nat the neighboring businesses so there is some advantage to merchants. He suggested\nthat Big-O consider constraining how many cars they serve since there is inadequate\nparking for the current level of service.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to limit speakers to three minutes since there were\nfar more than five speaker slips for this item. Board member Alvarez second the motion.\nThe motion carried, 6-0\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMr. James Manning, neighboring resident, was not in favor of staff's recommendation. He\nasked to include limiting employee parking in public parking in Condition #2. He said that\nhe conducted parking impact observations on street parking in his neighborhood. He\ncounted 11 Big-O employees during peak periods taking up street parking.\nMrs. Mary Manning, neighboring resident, did not support the staff's recommendation.\nShe said that although she does not fall within the 300' notification radius she is heavily\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 7, "text": "impacted by this issue. She said that her household's use of street parking is limited by\nBig-O.\nMr. Larry Wilson, neighboring resident, was not in favor of staff's recommendation, stating\nthat retired people who live in the neighborhood come in and out of their homes regularly\nsince they are not at work during the day when Big-O is operating. He said Big-O\nemployees are on the look-out for parking spaces and they snatch them up quickly when\none becomes available. Therefore, residents are heavily impacted by Big-O's operations.\nMr. Duane Watson, of Lee Auto, supported Big-O. He said there are no lots in the area\navailable for Big-O. He attested that Big-O tries hard to get people in and out as quickly\nas possible. He supported keeping Big-O in the community.\nMr. Paul Grossman, resident, spoke in favor of Big-O stating that he uses the valet service\nand that this operation is the most successful Big-O in the country. He asked the Board\nto figure out a way to work with Big-O.\nMr. Gary Voss, Big-O Tires owner, stated that he is a part of Park Street Business\nAssociation and the Chamber of Commerce. He said Big-O is trying to be a good partner\nto Alameda and that Big-O brings customers to downtown and generates taxes for the\nCity. He said it feels discriminatory to say Big-O cannot use the public parking and pointed\nout that other businesses have more customers that use the public parking lot. He\nindicated that Big-O strives not to use metered parking. Furthermore, he stated that Big-\nO makes their private parking available to the public after they close in an effort to\ncontribute to the community.\nMr. Joe Martin, local business owner, was not in favor of Big-O although he is Gary's\ncustomer. He said Gary does not have adequate staff. The business is too big and has\nout grown the space it currently has.\nMr. Glenn Reeder, resident, spoke against Big-O. He said he lives a block from Big-O\nand it is impossible to park on the street during the day. As a result, residents do not want\nto leave their homes during the day. He said that the conditions that prompted complaints\nin the past have gotten much worse.\nMr. Michael Notaro, attorney representing Washboard V Laundromat, spoke against Big-\nO stating that when Big-O's original Use Permit was issued, they were serving 20 invoices\na day. Today, Big-O serves 60-65 invoices a day. He said the congestion in the public\nparking lot is a cause for concern because of the fire hazard it presents. He asked the\nBoard to require Big-O to find an extra yard for their operation.\nMr. Art Thoms, Washboard V Laundromat owner, spoke against Big-O. He noted that the\nparking problem began eight years ago. Since then, he has talked with Gary to try and\nresolve the problems but the problems have persisted. He said that when the meter maids\nwould come by, Big-O employees would come out and talk with them and they would not\nget ticketed. Mr. Thoms circulated a petition against Big-O and received 9 business\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 8, "text": "signatures and 117 laundromat customer signatures. He asked the Board to reject\nchanges to Use Permit and reinforce meter enforcement.\nMs. Melinda Hayes, Big-O customer, spoke in support of Big-O. She said she goes\nshopping at the neighboring businesses when she takes her car to Big-O. She asked the\nBoard to consider the contribution Big-O brings to the community.\nMs. Penelope Pahl, local business owner, spoke in favor of Big-O. She said that parking\nis a problem everywhere and that the issue needs to be resolved rather than to ask Big-\nO to move. She said Big-O customers are entitled to use the public parking just like\neveryone else.\nMr. Michael McDonough, of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of Big-\nO stating that Big-O is an important and successful business to Alameda. He did not\nagree with adding employee parking to Condition #2 but does agree with the City's\nrecommendations.\nMr. Guido Bertoli, Big-O co-owner, clarified that Big-O rarely uses metered parking and\nthat they do not have any deals with the meter maids. He said Big-O is actively looking\nfor alternative sites to expand the business and emphasized that they leave their private\nparking open to the community after business hours.\nMr. Daniel Marshall, customer of Big-O and laundromat, spoke in favor of Big-O. He\npointed out that other businesses in the area also have customers that use the public\nparking for extended periods of time, such as the hair salons. He said that people often\nshop at his wine shop while their cars are at Big-O.\nMr. Ray Mazur, resident and customer, spoke in favor of Big-O. He said that parking\nproblems are not unique to the neighborhoods near Big-O-he has them in his\nneighborhood too. He said Big-O is a gem in Alameda and that a solution to this issue\nwould benefit everyone.\nMs. Lisa Crawford, resident, spoke against Big-O. She said she lives around the corner\nfrom Big-O and parking has gotten progressively worse. She said she also schedules her\nday around Big-O because of how problematic parking is.\nMr. Frank Martin, resident, was not in favor of Big-O. He stated that Big-O conducts work\noutdoors regularly and that parking is a big problem.\nMr. Jay Garfinkle, Big-O site property owner, spoke in support of Big-O stating that owners\nhave been working diligently to find alternative parking. He said that parking has gotten\nworse all over the City and that he thinks the owners will be able to resolve the parking\nissues.\nMs. Sarah Martin, spoke in favor of Big-O, stating that Big-O is a reliable institution in the\ncommunity and that Big-O customers bring business to Park Street.\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Peter Balmes, of TBC Corporation, spoke in favor of Big-O stating that the owners as\nfranchisers of Big-O are exceptional business people. He said that servicing vehicles\noutside of the shop is common. He came from Florida just to support the owners because\nof what good business people they have been for 33 years.\nMr. Bobbie Ceturion, resident, spoke in favor of Big-O. He said that Big-O has a great\nreputation and urged the Board to grant the amendment to the Use Permit.\nMr. Kevin Mulholland, Big-O employee, spoke in favor of Big-O. He said employees work\ndiligently to rotate cars quickly. He asked the Board to take into consideration what Big-\nO contributes to the community.\nThe Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked for clarification on Condition #2. Mr. Thomas explained that\nstaff suggests deleting the section that states Big-O must find alternative parking for\ncustomer cars and employees and replacing it with a condition indicating storage of cars\nin public parking is a violation of the Use Permit-three violations would require review of\nthe Use Permit by the Planning Board to consider revocation.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster agrees with the conditions recommended by staff and that meter\nmaids must strictly enforce meters.\nBoard Member Tang said that Big-O needs to regulate the amount of work they conduct.\nHe said that residents are impacted the most and brought up the idea of implementing a\nresidential parking permit system.\nBoard Member Knox White asked why the \"No Left Turn\" sign is a condition if the City\ncannot enforce it. Mr. Thomas responded that it was to encourage customers to turn right.\nBoard Member Knox White suggested either removing it or strengthening it. He said that\nthis business is important to the City's economy and the Board must do what they can to\nkeep them. He also said he was not in favor of adding employees to Condition #2 and\nthat it lacked a time frame so it would need some clarity in order for him to support it. He\nasked for the item to return to the Planning Board with a parking study rather than\nanecdotal stories. He said Condition #1 was okay but not allowing cars o be jacked up\nbecause that would affect the aesthetic of the neighborhood.\nBoard Member Zuppan said she patronizes other businesses when she uses Big-O. She\nasked what has happened since the last public hearing. Mr. Thomas answered that there\nhave been many conversations between the City and the owners for the past two years\nbut since there have been so many complaints they had to bring it for a public hearing.\nBoard Member Alvarez motioned to continue past 10:30 p.m. Board member Zuppan\nsecond the motion.\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 10, "text": "The motion carried, 6-0.\nBoard member Alvarez said she was surprised by Condition #2 and that she thinks it is\nnot fair and not doable. She asked how the City would measure whether Big-O is in\nviolation when their customers are also patronizing other businesses. She concurred with\ndiscussing permit parking in residential areas but did not agree with the staff\nrecommendations.\nPresident Henneberry said that he was against cars up on blocks but that employees\nshould be allowed to park wherever they want. He asked whether Big-O was in favor of\nthe conditions. Mr. Gary Voss, of Big-O, replied that if they can't do service outside they\nwill be forced to move to Oakland. President Henneberry said that if Big-O is okay with\nthe conditions then he is fine with them too.\nBoard Member Knox White suggested adding a condition for metered spots indicating\nthat they are for short term use only. He thinks the issue is leading to a residential parking\npermit discussion but it will be a long, difficult discussion if it does get there. He suggested\nstaff amend the resolution and come back to the Planning Board in 60 days and\nsuggested starting with Condition #2 to include metered parking and include a time frame\nof one month. He said Condition #5 should be deleted since the City cannot enforce it.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster agreed with Board member Knox White's comments. He said Big-\nO should have a trial period with the conditions and should conduct a traffic study.\nBoard Member Alvarez asked if a continuance was possible. Mr. Thomas replied that it\nwas and that there was no deadline for this item.\nPresident Henneberry stated that the Board was not ready for a decision and asked staff\nto come back with an amended resolution.\nBoard Member Alvarez motioned to continue the item. Board Member Zupppan second\nthe motion.\nThe motion carried, 6-0.\nMr. Thomas said staff would rework the resolution.\nBoard Member Zuppan motioned to continue past 11:00 p.m. Board member Alvarez\nsecond the motion.\nThe motion carried, 6-0.\n7-D. A Request to Establish an Ad Hoc Planning Board Subcommittee to direct the next\nsteps on the planning and design effort of the Boatworks Project.\nMr. Thomas said the subcommittee needed a panel of up to three. President Henneberry\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-07-13", "page": 11, "text": "said he would be on it and asked for volunteers. Board Member Alvarez and Board\nMember K\u00f6ster volunteered.\nThe Board opened public comment.\nMr. Robert McGillis, of Boatworks Ownership Group, spoke in favor of the item stating\nthat he looks forward to working with the subcommittee.\nThe Board closed public comment.\n8-A. Draft Meeting Minutes - May 26, 2015.\nBoard Member Tang abstained from comment on the approval of the minutes.\nPresident Henneberry asked if there were any comments on the minutes. There were\nnone.\nBoard Member Alvarez motioned to approve the minutes. Board member Zuppan second\nthe motion.\nThe motion carried, 5-0.\n9-A. Zoning Administrator and Design Review\nMr. Thomas said staff approved a few design reviews and that there were no issues.\n10. Written Communications\nNone\n11. Board Communications\nNone\n12. Oral Communications\nNone\n13 ADJOURNMENT\n10:21 p.m.\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-07-13.pdf"}