{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nRegular Meeting - November 14, 2005\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMr. Piziali\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Vice President Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch,\nMcNamara and Piziali.\nBoard Member Mariani was absent.\nAlso present were Deputy City Attorney Julie Harryman, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,\nPlanner II Emily Pudell, Dorene Soto, Development Services Department, Executive Assistant\nLatisha Jackson.\n4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of October 24, 2005.\nVice President Cook advised that she had one correction on page 10, paragraph 2 should read Vice\nPresident Cook would like to see more objective data, and noted that there were no easy Targets to\nget to from Alameda and Oakland and traffic from Oakland may therefore be greater than\nanticipated.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve the minutes for the meeting of October 24, 2005, as amended.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nM/S Cook/McNamara to move item 8-B to the consent calendar as no speaker's slips were\nsubmitted.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A. UP05-0014/MDR05-0217 - Li-Sheng Fu & Jim Hom - 2320 Lincoln Avenue (EP). A\nUse Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the building located adjacent to Gim's\nChinese Kitchen. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 975 square feet in size\nand will be utilized during normal business hours (between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) 7 days a week.\nOnly minor changes are proposed to rehabilitate the exterior of the building. The site is\nlocated within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (Continued from\nthe meeting of October 24, 2005. Applicant has withdrawn request.)\nM/S McNamara/Cook to approve the applicant's request to withdraw this item.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n8-A.\nDR05-0045, PF05-0001, V05-0008; John Knowles - 2416 Central Avenue (AT).\nApplicant requests Major Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,850 square\nfoot two-story commercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing\nparking lot located between the buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and\nLindsey offices. The applicant also requests the payment of in-lieu fees and Variance for the\nadditional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T, Community\nCommercial Theatre Combining District. (Continued from the meeting of October 24,\n2005.)\nBoard member Lynch arrived during this item.\nStaff member Allen Tai summarized the staff report.\nDorene Soto of the Development Services Department commented on the Variance and economic\naspects of the project. She explained that the City of Alameda does not currently have a parking plan\npolicy for Park Street or Webster Street, where retail businesses could be built out and accommodate\nhistoric structures to encourage development. She noted that the City is currently working on a\nscope of services for a parking consultant to assist in this matter as potential business owners have\ndecided not to do business in Alameda due to the costly parking in-lieu fees. She also noted that the\nDevelopment Services Department would like to support the applicant in his request for a Variance of\nfive parking spaces.\nPresident Cunningham inquired on the calculation of how the in-lieu fees are paid in reference to the\ncode. Ms. Soto responded that the City needed to look at the overall picture. She stated the City\nwould hire someone to review the code as the two downtown streets are different and their needs are\ndifferent. She stated that she has met with several business owners about coming into the downtown;\nhowever, when parking in-lieu fees were discussed, they have stated that they are not willing to pay\nthe fees.\nBoard member McNamara inquired if this project was a new construction. Ms. Soto responded in the\naffirmative. She noted that the new construction was in the historical district, and was located behind\nthe historic building. Ms. Eliason made a point of clarification to the Board that the project was a\nnew building.\nVice-President Cook inquired on the history of the site, if there was some office space added as part\nof that project in the back of the building. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that office\nspaces were added to this building in 2001; however, as a result of that project there was a net loss in\nfloor area due to elimination of mezzanine spaces upstairs.\nVice-President Cook inquired if the new building that was already approved had parking requirements\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 4, "text": "waved. Mr. Tai noted that when that work was done, no new parking spaces were triggered because\nthere was a loss in floor area.\nBoard member McNamara inquired if the approval of last year's construction occurred. Mr. Tai\nresponded that that project was approved on a separate parcel and that the addition also did not\ntrigger extra parking spaces.\nVice-President Cook inquired why that request did not trigger additional parking spaces. Mr. Tai\nresponded that the code specifies that only an expansion to a commercial building that is 25% of the\nexisting floor area or equivalent to five parking spaces would trigger the parking. The office space\nthat Board member McNamara referred to was a demolition of an existing addition and\nreconstruction, so the net gain floor area was not sufficient to trigger additional parking.\nJohn Knowles, the applicant, addressed the Board explaining the history of this project, which began\nsix years ago and informed the Board that part of the confusion was that this was an ongoing project\nand from his point of view the project is actually four separate parcels. He noted that Mr. Tai was\nreferring to the net loss of leaseable area in the original building and then 1,000 sq. ft. of new space\nwas added. At the same time they demolished the entire ground floor, which had a net loss of roughly\n1,000 sq. ft. thus leaving no parking requirements. He felt the project accrued a credit towards in-lieu\nparking fees. This office space would match the fa\u00e7ade of the Starbucks building. He stated the\nparking lot would be re-landscaped. He felt the in-lieu fees were extraordinarily high and were\nfinancially difficult for him. He then noted that this is the first new building to be in down town Park\nStreet in the past 20-25 years. He felt that the services provided in the building would be good for\nthe City at large. He felt these fees on top of all the other fees were excessive. He reiterated that he\nthought it would be a great project for keeping momentum going in the Park Street area.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired how many spaces the applicant thought were accrued on accrued\ndeficit from the previous parcel. Mr. Knowles responded five spaces.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired on how the current parking lot is managed and if the applicant\nreserves spaces for businesses in the area. Mr. Knowles stated he is reserving spaces for certain\nindividual business in the area. He noted that they have spaces leased out on a monthly basis.\nHowever, he noted that retail parking spaces are not leased out, just spaces for offices. Board\nmember Kohlstrand made a point of clarification on parking spaces for employees versus client\nparking to which Mr. Knowles responded employees are not supposed to park in the lot as the spaces\nare supposed to be for clients only. He also noted that the parking lot has not been tightly managed\nover the last year and they have gotten very sloppy with managing the parking lot in anticipation of\nthese projects. He noted that once the projects are completed, he is obligated to strictly enforce the\nparking space management.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that when the firm she worked for looked at the different locations\nof parking lots in the down town area, they realized not all parking lots were used effectively and\nwere reserved for individual businesses. She noted pieces of the lots had spaces that were not being\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 5, "text": "used. She understood one of the challenges is to accommodate long-term parking; however, when\ncommercial lots are not managed, parking gets pushed into residential areas. She stated one way of\nmanaging the parking lot is the applicant could restrict lots to tenants and their visitors, and have a\nlittle more flexibility and efficiency on how existing parking is utilized. She pointed out another\nfactor they uncovered was existing land uses in downtown Alameda and how the uses were being\nused for parking right now. She also noted an estimate was performed on the demand for parking in\nthe downtown area using the standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.\nShe noted her group found that if you use those standard rates and look at all uses individually, the\namount of parking required in downtown Alameda would be four times as much as is available right\nnow so that definitely argues for the fact that you get \"link trips\" that are not accounted for when you\nlook at all the individual parking requirements. She then noted she knew there were some provisions\nin the planning code for recognizing joint uses of activity or parking spaces going on downtown, but\nshe feels the City needs to be a little more specific on how that is administered. This might help some\nof these businesses that are trying to locate in downtown and can not meet the parking requirements\nor are having trouble financially dealing with the parking requirements even if the trouble is with in-\nlieu fees.\nPresident Cunningham requested a point of clarification on whether the traffic study was with a view\nof opening up to a public use. Board member Kohlstrand responded in the affirmative. She stated\nshe advocated that there were issues associated with it such as liability, safety and lighting. She was\nnot aware if the City had pursued this point. She stated the City has been doing parking studies down\ntown for years and fortunately at this point, is closer to getting a parking garage, but if other\nbusinesses develop, then the parking demand is going to increase if surface lots are eliminated.\nPresident Cunningham inquired if Board member Kohlstrand had seen situations in other jurisdictions\nwhere parking areas on private land has been used for public benefit, to which she responded in the\naffirmative. She noted it is happening on the Bank of America lot, and that lot is one of the biggest\nlots in down town. She felt the Bank of America parking lot has gone a long way toward alleviating\nthe problem.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired if the applicant's lot was used after hours. Mr. Knowles\nresponded in the affirmative. He noted it is mostly offices that have leases, but noted that residential\ntenants use it at night and after hours as well as restaurant diners.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted people use parking lots after hours for uses that are unsanctioned.\nBoard member Piziali inquired if the five spaces were originally credited to the applicant. Mr. Tai\nresponded that the 2001 renovation resulted in a loss of floor area. He noted that the Alameda\nMunicipal Code specifically states that within a five-year period if the commercial building is\nexpanded to 25% or floor area equivalent to five parking spaces, it triggers additional parking, but in\nthe case of Mr. Knowles' project, the floor area experienced a reduction.\nPresident Cunningham inquired if there was also a fact that it is a different property, which does not\napply to this project. Mr. Tai responded this does not apply to this project, as this is a new building,\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 6, "text": "whereas the code applies to expansions of existing buildings within a certain time period.\nMr. Knowles noted the credit was not generated by the 25% rule, but by the loss of space. Mr. Tai\nconcurred.\nPresident Cunningham inquired where the $26.00 per sq. ft. and the 250 multiplier originated. Mr. Tai\nresponded that it derived from averaging real estate transactions over a period of time and was\nprepared by the Development Services Department. He noted the rate of $26.00 was looking at\ntransactions that occurred after 2003, but staff was recently told this figure may increase significantly\nprices and transactions of real estate are looked at in recent times.\nPresident Cunningham inquired where the 250 multiplier derived from. Mr. Tai responded that it is a\nflat figure that is embedded in the code requirement and noted that it is the area of land required for\neach parking space.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired if the color palette for the building would be the same as the other\nbuilding. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that the building would look almost\nidentical with the exception of the parapet at the top.\nPresident Cunningham inquired if Public Works had any comments on the layout of the parking since\nit is one directional. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.\nPresident Cunningham inquired if this is in keeping with trash collecting since it was a previous\nconcern on this parcel. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative.\nPresident Cunningham noted he was concerned about granting this Variance, as it would compound\nthe problem. He noted the residents stated there was no parking downtown and the whole idea of\nhaving in-lieu fees was to help the city pay for a parking structure. He noted if the City is not\ncollecting revenue, this would encumber the City more. He also noted it would put the goal of\nbuilding a parking structure further away from being achieved.\nBoard member McNamara noted the issue she is having is if the intent of having the in-lieu fee\navailable is to look for either a replacement or some other way to make parking available. She stated\n$143,000 or $110,000 does not go far enough to make that a possibility as an alternative. She noted\nthat whole area is so impacted with parking and even if the bigger garage does go up, she did not\nbelieve it would satisfy the parking need. She noted she liked the construction and the design, but\nwas concerned about the amount of spaces it will take up.\nVice-President Cook echoed the concerns of Board member McNamara. She noted she felt a little\ndifferently about waiving the parking requirement when it is an existing building being rehabbed, a\nsmaller project or brand new building. She noted she wanted to approve it to encourage this type of\nproject, but she felt the 22-space shortfall seemed substantial for this particular area. She stated she\nwould not feel that way if the new parking structure construction were underway. She felt she would\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 7, "text": "be willing to take that leap of faith, but was concerned about the lawsuit filed against the new parking\nstructure and will lead to delay. She noted delay raises cost that can be a potential snowballing effect\nin terms of completing projects as currently planned. She noted she was struggling with it because\nshe wanted to encourage the type of project Mr. Knowles has done so well, but feels this sort of\nslippery slope in terms of the parking impact in the down town area.\nBoard member Piziali stated when he goes to Park Street he never has a problem parking. He noted\nhe sometimes parks within a block or two of where he is going and this does not present a problem.\nHe felt this idea of being able to pull up in front of the building you are patronizing is not likely to\nhappen each time. He understands there is a parking need but felt people do not like to walk that\nmuch. He noted the Board continually mentions parking and traffic in Alameda. He recommended\ngoing to neighboring cities and compare their parking and traffic to the Alameda downtown area. He\nstated he understood the need for more parking and he knows it is critical, but when he frequents\nPark Street he does not have to park blocks away. He stated he could not make the first finding on\nthe Variance and would not be able to support Mr. Knowles on that request.\nBoard member Kohlstrand echoed Board member Piziali's concerns. She stated she was in a\nquandary because of the code requirements were too high for this particular use, and she felt that is\nwhere the board should be focusing.\nBoard member Lynch stated he would err on the side of revitalizing downtown and economic\ndevelopment because this particular owner has helped to create synergy on Park Street. He felt this\nproject would benefit the community as a whole.\nPresident Cunningham echoed Board member Lynch's comments.\nBoard member Lynch inquired on the parking cost and if the city has any flexibility on when the\npayment is due or a pro-rating over a period of time. Mr. Knowles replied $143,000. Mr. Tai\nresponded the payment is due prior to issuance of the building permit.\nBoard member Lynch inquired if the City was expecting to receive funds from this project to do the\naforementioned traffic study. Ms. Soto responded in the negative.\nBoard member Lynch inquired if the applicant had a preliminary construction schedule or\nconstruction build out in terms of, months or years. Mr. Knowles responded in the negative. Mr.\nKnowles stated he hoped to come to market within a year.\nBoard member Lynch inquired if the code recognizes the amount due of $143,000 at the pulling of\nbuilding permits, would the City or staff consider collecting half the amount at the pulling of the\nbuilding permit and the other half at the final. Mr. Tai responded that would be a possibility. He\nnoted the maximum amount of time the City could provide applicants to pay fees would be at final\nbuilding occupancy without requiring additional staff time to administer legal requirements.\nMs. Harryman made a point of clarification noting before Board member Lynch's question was\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 8, "text": "answered that it may be an issue that is set forth in the code as opposed to policy and how it has been\npreviously practiced and should be researched. She noted if the code does state that fees should be\npaid before building permits are issued then that is not something that can change.\nIn response to a question by President Cunningham, Ms. Harryman replied there is precedence.\nPresident Cunningham stated he was concerned about precedence. He stated if the Board were to\ngrant the Variance, future developments would then come back with projects requesting dispensation.\nHe noted there has to be guidelines.\nBoard member Lynch stated Government Code is very clear when it comes to fees and fee studies.\nBoard member Piziali inquired if the City determines the fee or the state. Board member Lynch\nreplied the fee comes from the California Government Code. Board member Piziali commented if the\nparking requirements were not so obscured, the fees would most likely be lower.\nBoard member Kohlstrand noted the Board should not state the fee is not correct, but should look at\nwhy so many parking spaces are required downtown, when there is this synergy of activity that goes\non.\nBoard member Piziali echoed Board member Kohlstrand's comments.\nVice-President Cook inquired about the fourth resolution condition, which states \"pursuant to the\ncode for any change of use, employees or seating capacity occurring within ten years from the date of\nthe building completion additional on-site parking shall be provided.\" She noted she does not see\nhow additional on-site parking can be provided as it appears to be \"parked\" out, so the resolution\nshould say \"on-site parking or in-lieu fees.\" However, it also led her to believe that it is referring to a\nrestaurant, which has higher parking requirements than a retail store and if that is where the 22 spaces\ncame from. Mr. Tai responded in the affirmative. He noted that condition is specifically to address\nrestaurant uses, which require additional parking or more parking than standard general retail uses.\nHe explained retail uses require parking at the rate of one space per every 200 sq. ft., whereas\nrestaurants are under a certain floor area required to have approximately 40 spaces.\nBoard member McNamara inquired if a restaurant use can ever go in this space. Mr. Tai responded\nthat the parking need was currently calculated based on floor area for general retail and office uses,\nwhich would require 22 spaces. A similar sized restaurant would require 40 spaces.\nBoard member Piziali stated the Board's only option appeared to be granting the Variance; however,\nhe could not make the first finding. Board member Piziali inquired if the City's requirement for 22\nspaces would be increased to 40 spaces if the project became a restaurant. Ms. Eliason responded in\nthe affirmative. She noted it would trigger the need for additional in-lieu fees, as there is no parking\navailable.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 9, "text": "Vice-President Cook stated she felt willing to support the project but could not find for the Variance.\nShe felt it raised a valuable issue on the need to complete the parking study.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired on the possibility of acting on the design review and approving\nthe project but bringing the Variance back after further study. Ms. Eliason responded that parking\nstudy and an amendment to the zoning ordinance could take several months.\nPresident Cunningham stated the Board needed more information. He noted Mr. Knowles and Ms.\nSoto made comments about the financial adversity with bringing developers the Park Street and\nWebster Street areas. He felt it would be useful for the Board to understand what would be\nconsidered appropriate. He stated there are costs and parking requirements involved in development\nand the requirement is its own resolution as it generates in-lieu fees. He stated if the in-lieu fee was\nreduced where the development becomes realistic.\nIn response to a question by Vice-President Cook, Mr. Tai responded that the developer would be\nresponsible for driveway removal. Ms. Harryman noted Vice President Cook's comments on the\nresolution and suggested modification to condition 11 by adding the words \"and pay\" after Public\nWorks Department so the sentence would read: \"Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant\nshall coordinate with the Public Works Department and pay for the removal of curb cut and\ncompensate for the relocation,\" and amending condition number 4 on the resolution by adding\n\"additional onsite parking or in-lieu fees shall be provided.'\nM/S Piziali/Cook to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-44 to approve the payment of in-\nlieu fees and a Major Design Review for the construction of a new 5,850 square foot two-story\ncommercial retail/office building in the northeast quadrant of an existing parking lot located between\nthe buildings occupied by the Starbucks cafe and Gallagher and Lindsey offices and denial of the\nVariance for the additional required parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C T,\nCommunity Commercial Theatre Combining District.\nAYES - 4 (Mariani absent); NOES - 2; ABSTAIN- - 0\nAfter the vote, a lengthy discussion ensued regarding the Planning Board members' views on the\nparking requirements in the downtown Park Street area and the fees required for businesses to locate\nin Alameda. Board member Kohlstrand made a clarification that when she voted no on this\nparticular project, that she was against it because she supported the Variance the applicant\nrequested.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 10, "text": "8-B. UP04-0008; Julie Baron - 1223 Park Street (EP). Review of Use Permit approved\nNovember 22, 2004 for the outdoor dining and retail sales display area associated with a coffee and\ntea garden. The property is located within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theatre Combining\nDistrict.\nM/S McNamara/Cook to approve the review of Use Permit approved November 22, 2004 for the\noutdoor dining and retail sales display area associated with a coffee and tea garden.\nAYES - 5 (Lynch, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 11, "text": "8-C.\nDiscussion of 2006-2008 Capital Improvement Projects (CE).\nMs. Eliason summarized this item and informed the Board that these projects are administered by the\nPublic Works Department. She stated Capital Improvements are physical improvements that the City\nperforms which are generally large scale, multi-year projects, the Library being a perfect example.\nThis year Public Works asked for the various Boards and Commissions to give recommendations for\nfunding priorities. The Planning & Building Department does not have any Capital Improvement\nprojects except for the One-Stop Permit Center. She noted there are annual funds for the General\nPlan and Zoning, but these are not considered Capital Improvements. She advised the Board that the\nCapital Improvement Program would come before the Board again in March 2006 and at that time\nthe Board will be asked to make a consistency determination with the General Plan.\nIn response to a question by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that rank is the numerical\nsystem related to the various aspects of each project. She also noted that ranking was combined with\nfunding, so a project that may have a lower rank, but has funding, may move over a project that has\nno ability to be funded. In a response to a question by Board member Piziali, Ms. Eliason responded\nthat projects are ranked by a ranking sheet which is prepared by the department whose project it is.\nThe sheets are all accumulated and reviewed by staff and the Department Heads.\nIn response to questions by Board member McNamara and Vice-President Cook, Ms. Eliason\nclarified that carryover projects that were funded would be completed. If the projects are based on\ngrant funding that was anticipated, but did not receive the grant, then it would not have the complete\nfunds.\nPresident Cunningham inquired about how Planning policy or ordinances will be addressed. Ms.\nEliason replied the Department has annual funds for the Housing Element, General Plan update and\nthe Development Code. She also noted there is a community planning fee that should fund some of\nthe Department's annual projects.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired if the Capital Improvement Program funded these program. Ms.\nEliason responded in the negative. She noted they are annual allocations and not Capital\nImprovements. She pointed out they are itemized because the money is carried over year to year but\nthey are not part of the Capital Improvement Program.\nPresident Cunningham stated there should be money assigned to developing a citywide sustainable\nordinance. Ms. Eliason replied staff member Andrew Thomas was looking into some of the policies\nin the Community Reuse Plan and planned to incorporate them into the Master Plan for Alameda\nPoint.\nVice President Cook inquired how the sustainable ordinance or waterfront design and access\nguidelines would be completed if there were no staff or money to complete them. Ms. Eliason\nresponded that planning programming is done through the budgeting process. She clarified that Vice\nPresident Cook was referring to adding to the Planning &Building Department's work program,\nwhich is different from a Capital Improvement. Vice President Cook requested a list of\nthe\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 11\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 12, "text": "Department's priorities.\nBoard member Lynch stated he has never seen planning work plans in a Capital Improvement budget\nand felt it was questionable. Ms. Eliason explained the reason these items were put into Capital\nImprovements originally was that the projects are multi-year. She stated under previous\nadministrations any money that was not expended during a year was swept back into the General\nFund. So in order to secure monies, Departments created a Capital Improvement Program for their\nmulti-year projects. Board member Lynch stated that method clearly was the wrong way to go and\nthe wrong way to do it. He noted every jurisdiction runs studies, projects and consultants on multi-\nyear projects and simply encumbered the funds because the California Code allows you to keep those\nencumbered funds.\nBoard member Kohlstrand requested Planning Board input into the Planning and Building\nDepartment work program priorities. She inquired if the work program has traditionally come before\nthe Planning Board. Ms. Eliason responded she did not believe any of the previous Planning &\nBuilding Directors have done that, but felt the Board's input into the work program is important.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired if there was any restriction for the Boards or Commissions from\nproviding some advisory input. Ms. Eliason responded the budget is a public document and the work\nprogram is something that the Board is obviously very interested in.\nBoard member Lynch stated some jurisdictions have a joint meeting between their Board of\nSupervisors or their City Council and the Planning Commission. He noted the meeting provides an\nopen discussion about work program priorities with community input. President Cunningham stated if\nnothing else the Board is looking for some intervention with the City Council and some discussion\ntime. Ms. Eliason stated she would relay that to the City Manager's office. Board member Lynch\nstated this Board might even consider allocating some of its agenda time to meet with the City\nCouncil.\nIn response to a question by Board member McNamara, Ms. Eliason explained the review process.\nBoard member McNamara stated she felt the Board needed to know more about projects and their\nranking before discussion.\nVice President Cook stated she felt more attention should be given to the Civic Center Plaza as that is\nsomething the community is interested in.\nBoard member Kohlstrand inquired if there was any progress on the City Manager attending a\nPlanning Board meeting. Ms. Eliason responded a request was provided to the Assistant City\nManager.\nBoard member Lynch stated given the demand in the Bay Area for open space he was concerned that\nthe Alameda Point projects were not self-funded. Ms. Eliason stated she believed the funding is\ndeferred because the City does not own the property. Board member Lynch further inquired about\ngolf course revenue for improvements. Ms. Eliason responded she would have to research that. She\nstated the Golf Department is considering a new clubhouse.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 13, "text": "Board member Piziali stated he felt it was a shame the City doesn't do something about the Golf\nCourse entryway.\nBoard member Kohlstrand stated that the new Main Library should not be on the un-funded project\nlist. She stated that many of these projects have special funds that are set aside just for their particular\nuse. They should be ranked within that special fund.\nBoard member Lynch reminded the Board that this system was created by the previous administration\nin terms of the structure.\nBoard member McNamara inquired if the Webster Street renaissance project is complete since it is\nlabeled as 44 ranked un-funded project. Ms. Eliason responded she would research that.\nBoard member McNamara questioned the CIP process. Ms. Eliason stated this is a new process and\nadvised the Board that Public Works will be hosting several public meetings on this topic and urged\nthe Board to attend. Staff will forward the Board's comments and concerns to the Public Works\nDepartment. By the time the CIP list returns to the Planning Board in March, it will be a finalized\nlist.\nBoard member Kohlstrand thanked Ms. Eliason for her patience.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 13\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-11-14", "page": 14, "text": "9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nMr. Piziali advised there was nothing new to report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\ne.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMs. Kohlstrand advised that the transportation subcommittee did have its last and final meeting on\nNovember 2, 2005 and received additional input on their recommended classification system for the\nstreet network in Alameda. It has gone to staff for comment and will come before the Planning Board\nin the future.\nVice President Cook informed the Board that on November 16, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. the League of\nWomen Voters would be sponsoring a forum about Alameda Point at the Church on the corner of\nGrand and Santa Clara. She pointed out staff member Andrew Thomas had all the details.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nThere will not be a meeting on November 28, 2005.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: 9:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nGregory J. McFann, Acting Secretary\nPlanning & Building Department\nThese minutes were approved at the January 9, 2006, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 14\nNovember 14, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf"}