pages: PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2014-08-25 | 5 | Board member Knox White asked staff to move the bike parking. He is fine with the parking plan and feels the staff report is very clear. Board member Alvarez-Morroni agreed with Knox White. Board member Zuppan asked if reciprocal parking can be pulled by the other site. Mr. Tai explained specific details of revocable and non-revocable reciprocal parking agreements and there doesn't seem to be a conflict with the current use. The agreement with both hotels cannot go away, there is no end date to the agreement, and both parties have to agree to any changes. Vice President Henneberry commented that the reciprocal agreements are fine when parties are getting along, but not so much when they aren't. He asked for a clear explanation of what can happen if either party asks for a change in the agreement specifically the words 'sole discretion'. Is there a clause in the agreement that would allow the office building owners to cancel the parking agreement. Mr. Tai stated there are a couple of clauses for instance the hours of use, and that the other owners are not using those spaces during those hours, and that there is an overage of spaces, referencing the Kittlelson letter, also there are conditions recorded with the original land. Board member Knox White asked if the Planning Board can set a condition of approval for parking. Mr. Thomas stated yes, and staff can report back on a clarification on the consultants letter. Regarding the CEQA comments, there are no violations here as there has been a in-depth analysis completed, and there is no variance in the zoning. President Burton agreed that an irrevocable agreement might be a better way. He also stated that the design looks good. Board member Zuppan asked if the parking requirements have been changed. Mr. Thomas stated they have been changed for hotels, but not city-wide. Board member Knox White motioned to approve the designs with the condition of changing the parking requirement to .82, receiving an irrevocable parking agreement, and amend to include restriping of the parking spaces. Board member Zuppan seconded. Motioned carried. 4-1 (Henneberry opposed) 7.C. City of Alameda Zoning Amendment Regarding Commercial Recreational Uses and other miscellaneous amendments. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing Approved Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 August 25, 2014 | PlanningBoard/2014-08-25.pdf |