pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-14 | 6 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that with respect to 2.5(s), "Amend Alameda Municipal Code to reduce off-street parking requirements," she wrote "Yes!" Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's comments. Mr. Thomas noted that the use "consider amending" acknowledged that nothing could be amended until the public hearings were held on the specific amendment. President Cook noted that the parking garage is close to opening, and she believed that the City should be able to give some relief to allow more restaurant uses downtown. Board member McNamara inquired about the language "which exceeds recommendation of Metropolitan Transportation. and whether the specifics of those recommendations was 5 per 1,000. Mr. Thomas replied that it was closer to 3 or 4 per 1,000. Board member McNamara inquired whether that should be included. Mr. Thomas replied that the explanatory text detailed the need and reason for it; staff would return with specific parking recommendations as part of the ongoing study. He noted that the General Plan policy stated that it was the City's goal to reduce the parking requirements, and that the decision-marking of the reductions should be left to the actual Zoning Amendment, which will be brought back in the future. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the second sentence of the last item of page 4 should introduce the idea of shared parking, in addition to multimodal parking. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 2.5(m), "Improve Public Transit Service to Shopping Areas," the next sentence read, "Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus shelters " She believed those were two different things, and that unless it referred to City transportation, the City did not have much influence over AC Transit funding decisions. She noted that AC Transit has been cutting services. She believed that a possible use of the increased parking meter fees on Park Street should go not only into the General Fund, but uses that support the shopping on Park and Webster Street such as a shopper shuttle. Regarding 2.5(n)(v), Board member McNamara noted that the second sentence read, "If large quantities of off-street parking are necessary to serve the development should be provided in structures located behind or beside the retail mix," which seemed to apply to Alameda Landing. She inquired whether in future design developments, what happened in Alameda Landing would not happen with respect to parking behind the use. Mr. Thomas noted that was his effort to verbalize the Board members' wishes, and that it would not affect Alameda Landing. He noted that it would affect new construction and new retail facilities. He noted that the word "discourage" was used because Alameda Point was big, with a lot of land on the site, with large and difficult financial constraints. Staff wished to convey the intent that the City did not want large parking fields, which should be screened from view if they did exist. Page 6 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf |