pages_fts: 18566
This data as json
rowid | text |
---|---|
18566 | Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed with Mr. Piziali's assessment that the parking in lieu fees of almost $90,000 were excessive. She suggested that an adjustment could be made retroactively. She noted that the language in the resolution on page 2 read, "The City is able to utilize the parking in lieu fees for parking and transit projects within the Webster Street commercial corridor. She noted that page 4 of the staff report stated that funds would be used to lease spaces at a satellite lot, or to support transit services and facilities in the area. She would like to change the language to state on the resolution, "The City shall utilize the parking in lieu fees She would like to see the in lieu fees only fund transit projects, transit services and facilities in the area. She noted that shuttles to BART were needed to get people out of their cars during commute hours. Board Member Lynch wished to address parking in lieu fees, and based on his own professional experience, $6,000 was very inexpensive for a parking space. He realized the developer was not expected to pay the full cost of the parking spaces, but to use public dollars assist in that project. He would not support any reduction of the parking in lieu fees because of the greater public good. President Cook noted that she was not prepared to condition the dollars on transit in this area, because it was well-served by transit and less well-served by parking spaces. In general, she would like more information when such a suggestion is made for parking. She noted that there were a lot of buses running along this route already. In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether there were any plans to extend the treescape up to the project to maintain consistency in the landscaping, Mr. Brighton replied that there were fresh trees along Webster Street in front of the site. He noted that there may be one space for a tree; staff would check with Public Works to confirm that item. President Cook noted that the 100-foot height limit was in effect for this area, and she suggested that be examined before a future applicant considered a building of 100 feet in that location. She inquired whether it was a remainder from the 1970s, and suggested that it be brought down before it became an issue. She noted that she was in favor of this project, which addressed a number of issues that Board had discussed. She noted that it reflected the discussion held at the forum regarding the importance of placing residential use above retail or office in the business districts. She believed it supported the businesses, and kept the streets safer because of the 24-hour presence of people in the vicinity. She understood the neighbors' concerns about parking, and noted that it was the downside of enjoying a mix of uses in Alameda. She believed the City should work to find a place for the parking, and to enforce parking violations described by the neighbors. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported transit, but would not support the proposal by Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding transit because she believed the areas transitioning from low to moderate density needed time to do SO. She noted that shelters and street furniture had been enhanced in recent years, and believed the City should look at ways to consolidate the off-street parking. She did not believe the density was present to propose a structure right away. She believed there should be some off- Page 7 of 15 |