pages: PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-11-26 | 5 | parking on the site, and to use a standard approach towards shopping centers, which was different than what the Planning Board was trying to achieve. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she still had issues with the 26 spaces that would be backing out directly into the aisles. She was uncomfortable with Catellus's compromise position, and would like to see something in between the Planning Board's and the applicant's proposal. She noted that the standard parking requirements for a shopping center of this size, which indicated that 3.6 spaces per thousand was reasonable for a weekday, and 4 spaces per thousand for a weekend. She believed that if the curb cuts were reduced, that requirement could be met. She noted that there were parking lots all over the country that require people to circulate on-site, and did not find that to be a compelling argument. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she perceived Catellus's presentation of the compromise plan to City Council as an "end run" around the Planning Board, and was surprised to find that it was staff initiated. She inquired whether the Planning Board was intended to look at the compromise plan. Mr. Thomas described the background of the compromise plan. He noted that the City Council was also informed that it could remand the item back to the Planning Board. Member Lynch noted that he was somewhat disturbed by the comments, and believed the Planning Department acted correctly. He did not see any procedural issues, and did not believe they had done an "end run" around the Planning Board. He noted it was the department's responsibility to bring a project to a governing body so that they may make a determination in upholding the Planning Board's decision, remanding it back to the Planning Board, or in creating another plan. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that letters dated October 23 and November 2 had been distributed to the Planning Board during the meeting, and added that she would have liked to have received them sooner. She recalled the recent status update of Alameda Towne Centre, and that their general manager asked the Planning Board to allow them to reduce the parking ratio. She believed that was a good idea, and would be more in keeping with current environmental concerns. She wanted quality retail to come to Alameda, and was also concerned about the local air quality because of high levels of particulate matter in the air on Spare the Air days. She agreed with the goal to make the center pedestrian-friendly, and did not believe the traditional parking ratio needed to apply in this case. She noted that the Planning Board concurred that the applicant's plan, which she saw as a strip of retail surrounded by a sea of parking, was not what they wanted for Alameda. She would like to see a shared parking concept, and a lower parking space to retail square footage ratio. Member McNamara noted that she had hoped that a similar solution to reduce some of the current cutouts could be included in the compromise plan. She had similar concerns and issues with the applicant's arguments regarding the creation of a pedestrian-friendly environment. She believed that the retail brokers were exerting pressure on the applicant to have more of a car-oriented center. She was concerned about pedestrian safety throughout the entire center, and assumed that there would be a raised curb cutout on the sidewalk with Page 5 of 10 | PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf |