{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2009\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Cook led the flag salute.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft,\nBoard members Autorino, Cook, and Cunningham\nwere present upon roll call.\nBoard members Lynch and McNamara were absent.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager/Secretary\nto the Planning Board; Douglas Garrison, Supervising\nPlanner, Obaid Khan, Public Works, Eric Fonstein,\nDevelopment Services, Althea Carter, Executive\nAssistant/Recording Secretary\n4.\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of December 8, 2008\nContinued to the meeting of February 26, 2009\nMinutes from the meeting of January 12, 2009\n(pending)\nMinutes from the meeting of January 26, 2009\n(pending)\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A.\nFuture Agendas- Staff provided the Board with an update on future agenda\nitems.\n6-B. Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of February 3, 2009 - Canceled\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n*\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 5-minute time limit.\nNONE\n8.\nCONSENT 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\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 2, "text": "explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by\nsubmitting a speaker slip for that item.\nNONE\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Workshop on the Parking Management Plan for the Park Street and West\nAlameda Business Districts. The applicant, the City of Alameda, is requesting\nthat the Planning Board review a parking management plan for the Park Street\nand West Alameda Business Districts. The parking management plan outlines a\nseries of actions that the City could take in the future to improve the supply and\nmanagement of on and off street parking to support the business areas. (AT/EF).\nContinued from January 12, 2009.\nStaff presented the report. At the December 8, 2008 Planning Board meeting, when this\nitem was first presented, Staff was directed to return with responses to questions posed\nby the Board. This staff report focuses on off-street parking requirements for new\nbusinesses in the Park Street and Webster Street business districts. The proposal is a\ncomprehensive plan focusing on maintaining economic viability of the business districts.\nThe proposed parking strategy is supported by the Webster Street Business Association\n(WSBA). The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is scheduled to complete review\nof the proposal on February 25, 2009. Staff is requesting Board input regarding off-\nstreet parking, in-lieu fees and waivers. Staff will return to the Board with a draft\nordinance as well as comments and suggestions by PSBA at a future meeting date.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that staff was requesting specific direction from the Board\nin four areas: demand-waivers, off-street parking, alternatives to parking in-lieu fees,\nand parking waivers. She stated that there are two types of waivers: a demand waiver\nfocuses on conditions of the surrounding neighborhood including transit and off street\nparking facilities, other waivers refer to site use. The Board should focus the discussion\non these two items and the requirement of a parking study as well as how parking\nzones are established for meter pricing.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft commended staff on the report. She inquired why staff\nwas limiting the parking provisions to Park and Webster Street business districts only\nand not proposing regulations for citywide business districts. She stated that during a\nvisit to a business on Park Street between Otis and Shoreline there were big rigs parked\nalong the street. She stated there were no parking restriction signs in this area and this\nsituation should be looked into by Public Works.\nPublic Works staff stated that the municipal code restricts commercial vehicle parking\non city streets and any vehicle parked for more than 72 hours in the same spot.\nResidents should contact the Alameda Police Department to report violations.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she believes restricted parking signs should be\nposted.\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 3, "text": "President Kohlstrand believes the comment regarding citywide business district parking\nrestrictions is relevant. Discussions regarding big rig parking should be heard in a\ndifferent forum.\nStaff stated that Public Works, the Planning Department and Development Services\nstaff discussed including other neighborhood business districts during the discussion\nregarding Park and Webster business districts. The Wilbur Smith study focused on\ncommercial district parking along Park and Webster Streets. Staff plans to revisit\nneighborhood business district parking at a future date. These areas have different\nissues including loading and unloading restrictions. Access to transit in these areas is\ndifferent compared to Park and Webster Street business districts. Because of these\ndifferences, staff did not want to lump these areas into this discussion.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated these were valid issues for a future discussion.\nThere were no public comments and the public hearing was closed.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated the Board discussion should focus on demand waivers and\nin-lieu fees.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that uses in business districts may change but the\namount of square feet available is fixed. He believed planning should revolve around\nthe number of parking spaces required for the amount of retail space available. He\nbelieves staff should take a holistic approach to parking that will eliminate the need for\nmany waivers. He stated it appears that the City is requiring different business owners\nin the same location to pay for the same thing.\nStaff stated it was difficult to determine how much parking would be provided on each\nsite.\nBoard member Cunningham stated the question of whether the City wants to encourage\non-site parking needs to be answered. Previous discussions have centered on satellite\nparking areas to encourage pedestrian activity.\nBoard member Cook did not think the report was clear on what problem staff is trying to\nsolve. She stated there are different problems in different areas of the City. She\nbelieves North of Lincoln provides a good opportunity to predetermine a parking\nstrategy but the area South of Lincoln is a different situation including an underutilized\ngarage.\nStaff stated that the issue raised in the Wilbur Smith report was that private off street\nparking garages are not being fully utilized but off street public lots are fully utilized. This\nobservation occurred prior to the opening of the civic garage.\nBoard member Cook stated she thought there was a residential parking problem in the\nPark Street area based on her inability to find parking on Park Street. However, she was\nsurprised that in some cases more than half of the residents in the area did not perceive\nthis as enough of a problem to implement a residential permit-parking program. She\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 4, "text": "questioned whether this was because it was proposed that residents pay for the\nprogram.\nStaff stated the results depended on the location of the residence. Public Works\nreceived a request from a resident on Santa Clara near Park Street for a residential\npermit-parking program. Public Works wants to make this option available to the public.\nStaff is proposing an increase of street parking rates, discouraging overflow into\nresidential areas, and increasing the use of off street lots or garages.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that the Board understands when the parking study was\nconducted the civic garage was not built. She stated it appears that it may have been a\nmistake to gather all this information without considering the garage. The garage\nchanges the character of the area and this report states it is only 20 to 30 percent\noccupied during weekdays and 60 to 70 percent occupied on weekends, which may not\ninclude weekend nights.\nStaff responded that occupancy of streets and parking facilities is usually determined\nhour by hour but due to limited resources staff was unable to conduct this type of\nresearch. Staff was able to determine the total number of transactions occurring at\nmeters. Turnover information cannot be determined without sufficient staff.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she understands the limitations but believes the information\nis necessary.\nStaff believes the problem is that there is no clear process for staff to deal with an\napplicant proposing a new project. The garage may solve many parking issues on Park\nStreet but Webster Street is a different situation.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that parking is a dynamic situation. One approach may be\nto define the problem by area and then determine what the overall objective should be.\nShe believes a public parking facility must be part of the solution to facilitate shared\nresponsibility for providing parking. Where the City wants to maintain a certain\ncharacter, for example the historic business district on Park Street, the garage provides\nan opportunity to be flexible regarding on site parking requirements. In the northern area\nof Park Street a site for a public garage should be identified. This will provide flexibility\nat the onset of discussions. There are similar issues on Webster regarding historic and\nnon-historic districts.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft no longer believes a citywide comprehensive parking plan\nfor the business districts is the solution since there are different issues in different\nareas. Regarding the 25 percent weekday occupancy in the parking garage how does\nthe City justify charging a prospective business owner fees for maintenance on the\nexisting structure or construction of a future structure when the occupancy rate of the\ngarage is so low. Regarding parking waivers she believes waivers should only apply to\nthe requirement for providing automobile parking not bicycle parking. She stated that\nthe staff report seemed to be moving away from the requirement to provide bicycle\nparking and she would not support that position. It does not appear that many\nemployees are purchasing parking permits and are instead choosing to park in the\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 5, "text": "residential areas. She disagrees with the PSBA that employees should be given permits\nto park in residential areas. She asked if enough revenue was being generated by the\ngarage and stated that after 5 p.m. on weekends parking is free during this time and the\ngarage is heavily used.\nStaff stated that regarding bike parking, in-lieu fees are being used to provide bicycle\nracks on Central Avenue across from the theatre.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if any consideration had been given to encourage a\nprivate owner of any future parking structures.\nStaff stated that they were not aware of any formal requests for developing and\noperating a garage. Staff does not believe enough revenue would be generated to\njustify a new parking structure. In the historic area of Park Street changing the rate\ncharged for on-street parking, along with the addition of the civic garage and\nsurrounding parking lots, the parking problem in this area may be solved. Staff has been\nstruggling with the requirement that new businesses provide five spaces per 1,000\nsquare feet of retail space which is just not feasible in the Park Street area. During this\nsame period staff was requesting development at Alameda Landing provide no more\nthan four spaces per 1,000 square feet.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated she supports using the garage to solve parking concerns in\nthe Park Street business district.\nBoard member Autorino believes it is premature to adequately determine utilization of\nthe parking garage. He believes requiring a set number of parking spaces for\nbusinesses should apply to a shopping center or strip mall not the downtown area. He\ndoes not believe in the downtown area the City would want businesses to create\nadditional parking areas. He believes responsibility for providing parking in these areas\nshould be borne by the City and the community. He would support a plan where new\nbusinesses in these locations pay a fee to support or develop public parking facilities.\nHe stated that requiring a parking fee for a new business is appropriate but the City\nshould be responsible for providing the parking space.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if fees would be determined by the type of business\nor based on the square footage of the business. She asked if these fees would generate\nenough revenue to fund a new parking structure.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated there should be a distinction between whether square\nfootage is being added or whether it is an existing site with a new use. She stated that\nCEQA requirements are changing to impose a fee for every auto trip generated. The\nCity should take this into consideration as new policies are developed.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that if the Board is trying to stimulate growth it\nseems unfair to charge a new business at the front-end.\nStaff stated that in the North Park Street area staff is suggesting identification of a site\nfor a new parking structure in a central location and establishment of an assessment\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 6, "text": "district for the North Park Street area. The parking structure would be built up front and\nestablishing an assessment district would require repayment over twenty years by each\nproperty owner. Setting up assessment districts requires fifty one percent of the\nproperty owners to agree.\nBoard member Cook stated that establishing assessment districts is a common tool\nused by cities to provide parking, and could be particularly useful North of Lincoln.\nStaff stated that the challenge is if fifty one percent of the residents do not support\ncreating an assessment district, the City must provide money up front to build the\nstructure.\nPresident Kohlstrand asked how long it took to reach $148,000 in in-lieu parking fees\nand if any funds from the account were used towards the civic garage or for\nimprovements within the City.\nStaff replied that none of the funds in the account were used for the parking garage.\nStaff does not know if funds were used for any City improvements. Staff stated that in\nsix years there had been approximately four or five parking in lieu requests covering\nfour or five parking spaces. This level of activity does not generate a substantial amount\nof money.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated it is difficult for the City to provide money up front for\nconstruction of a parking garage. In lieu fees usually do not result in full recuperation.\nBoard member Autornio asked if it was unrealistic to require current businesses to pay\nan annual fee. He suggested dividing Park Street into four or five parking zones and\ncharging a yearly assessment fee to maintain parking in the zone.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that the Board would like to hear the perspectives of PSBA\nand WABA.\nBoard member Cook stated that her approach is to ask what do we want to see both\nSouth of Lincoln and North of Lincoln in 20 years. She believes sales tax generating\nuses that keep the corridor vital and replace the taxes lost from auto row is an\nappropriate vision for the area. She asked how the City can get high sales tax uses to\ncome to the area. The parking fees and solutions should facilitate the types of uses you\nwant. She believes there needs to be resolution of the issues between residential and\nbusiness uses. She believes it is unfair that 80 percent of employees are parking on the\nstreet yet we are asking residents to fund a residential parking program. The\nresponsibility should be on businesses to facilitate parking for the employees. She\nstated the City should make it easy to accomplish this by pricing or some other method.\nShe asked what are the problems staff is solving for and suggested that staff structure\nfees and incentives to resolve those problems.\nStaff stated that the residential parking permit program could become a drain on City\nfunds if it is not supported by the residents.\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 7, "text": "Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if it is possible to structure the fees based on the\nsize of a business or the number of employees or some similar criteria. She stated that\nbusinesses could provide employees with permits to park in a city owned parking lot.\nShe asked for elaboration on the proposed changes to CEQA regulations.\nA Board discussion ensued on proposed changes to CEQA.\nStaff stated that the citywide developmental impact fee is designed to be proportionate\nto the development. Under state law, impact fees for \"new\" facilities cannot be assessed\nsolely to the new development.\nBoard member Cook stated that the City could not mandate an assessment district. A\nmajority of residents and or business owners must vote for it.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that in the area North of Lincoln on Park Street staff can\ndetermine the amount of square footage now and if the area is developed to the\nmaximum potential, the amount of square feet that would exist and the demand for\nparking. She believes this would allow the City to develop a site as a surface parking lot\nuntil such time as it is feasible to develop a parking structure.\nA discussion ensued on whether a parking structure should be built first or when it is\nactually needed.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that she believes the issue is dealing with market demand\nfor parking. Employees are not parking in lots because they can park for free if they are\nwilling to walk two or three blocks. She stated the City is transitioning and has more\nintense uses in the downtown area. She believes a residential parking permit program is\nwarranted but she is unsure about how to structure it. She stated employees need to\nget their cars off the streets and onto a parking lot or structure. She wondered if long\nterm parking fees would be appropriate.\nStaff stated that for new businesses the parking requirement would not be waived. If\nthree employees work at the business but the business is unable to create parking on\nsite the owner could purchase annual garage passes for the employees in lieu of the\nparking requirement.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the staff report proposes making more parking\nspaces in the garage available for employee parking.\nStaff stated that the demand and usage for a parking structure is still being determined\nbut increased use of the garage is anticipated.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the need for flexibility in the approach to parking.\nShe stated that there is spillover into residential neighborhoods and asked why doesn't\nthe City make more employee spaces available in the parking lot then revisit this\nposition in the future. She stated that City vehicles should be parked off the street\nespecially during evenings and weekends.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 8, "text": "Board member Autorino agreed emphatically that more employee parking spaces\nshould be opened up at the in the parking lot utilizing the empty spaces.\nStaff stated that regarding policy, the Board would like the City to plan for strategically\nlocated parking lots or structures in North Park Street and perhaps North Webster\nStreet. Staff asked for Board direction regarding the ordinance and findings.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that the Board is in agreement that five parking\nspaces per 1,000 square feet is too much and should be reduced, requiring a traffic\nstudy for a small parcel is counterproductive to encouraging business opportunities.\nA discussion ensued regarding the approach to different requirements for businesses in\ndifferent areas of the City. Parking waivers, in lieu fees, pricing, higher fees in higher\ntraffic areas, employee parking, off street parking, delivery trucks, form based codes,\nexisting businesses versus new businesses versus new square feet were all discussed.\nPresident Kohlstrand stated that if the project involves existing square feet parking is\nnot required.\nStaff responded that the ability to negotiate employee transit or parking passes would\nbe forfeited with that approach. The minimum parking requirements are a hindrance to\ninfill development and in lieu fees allow for flexibility. Staff is proposing a sliding scale to\naccommodate smaller businesses.\nBoard member Cunningham stated that parking demand studies should not be required,\nthere should be a set rate per square footage for new additions and it should be less\nthan five per 1,000 square feet. He suggested 2 spaces per 1,000 and stated there is\nnot much Board support for in lieu fees but he would consider a development fee that\nincludes concessions.\nBoard member Autorino stated that the Board does not want to encourage the creation\nof on site parking in the South Park Street District.\nStaff stated there appeared to be Board consensus to remove in lieu fees and asked for\nconfirmation from the Board.\nBoard member Cook asked if there was a differentiation between infill and expansion\nand new development.\nStaff stated that the proposal handles these different situations with the provision of\nfindings.\nBoard member Cook stated that there should be less requirements for existing buildings\nalong with encouraging employees to park in lots or garages.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she prefers offering a menu of amenities\nallowing businesses to choose which option they prefer. She asked if staff could explain\nthe distinction made in the proposal between buildings that are over twenty years old.\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 9, "text": "Staff stated that the provision for buildings over twenty years old has been part of the\ncode for many years.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft asked staff to consider removing or revising this reference\nwhile the ordinance is being updated.\nStaff stated that if the parking requirement is waived and the owner or tenant does\ntenant improvements Board review would not be required.\nBoard member Cunningham stated the Board was okay with that.\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated she does not want to relinquish control of the entire\nprocess.\nStaff stated the ordinance could be more broadly structured.\nPresident Kohlstrand referred to page nine of the staff report. She believes this is more\nrestrictive than the current code. She stated that number one, three, four and five sound\nreasonable. She would like accommodation made for a modest business expansion\nwithout requiring new parking. She stated if a business meets these conditions no\nparking is required if the conditions are not met and certain measures are taken some\nor all of the requirements may not be required. She gave the example of a business\nwithin a quarter mile of a parking facility or within one block of a transit stop could be\nconsidered an exception.\nBoard member Cunningham suggested staff refer to the United States Green Building\nCouncil (USGBC) LEED sustainable site for language that could be used in regards to\npublic transit.\nBoard member Cook stated that businesses could establish an incentive program to\nencourage employees to use public transit or off street parking.\nPresident Kohlstrand believes the report does not clearly state that the City does not\nwant to encourage additional surface parking in historic districts especially the Park\nStreet area. She suggested that it is in this area where a fee structure or assessment\ndistrict would be applicable. She stated that a traffic engineer is not required to conduct\nthe traffic study but someone with experience conducting traffic studies is adequate.\nA Board discussion ensued on whether a traffic study is required under any\ncircumstances.\nStaff stated that the Board focused on three components. If there is an existing building\nin an historic district there is no parking requirement since it is assumed that parking\nalready exists, under certain conditions parking will be required but the business can\nchoose from a menu of options to accommodate this requirement, and there are areas\nNorth of Lincoln where parking is required and a fee structure should be implemented.\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-02-09", "page": 10, "text": "The Board directed staff to return with another draft of the ordinance after discussions\nwith PSBA.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n10-A February 3, 2009 City Council Staff Report: Annual Progress Report on the Local\nAction Plan for Climate Protection\nBoard member Autorino stated his disappointment that the establishment of a task force\nwas not listed as an accomplishment in the report presented to Council.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement\nor make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a\nreferral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to\nthe body at a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct\nstaff to\nVice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Harbor Bay bike trail is in need of\nimprovement due to tree roots. She stated the Shoreline bike trail is well\nmaintained.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: a 10:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-02-09.pdf"}