Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Mohr referred to the suggestion of adding a parking lot on the Southern Pacific right <br />of way. Council has allowed that to occur at the south end; would this have to be included in <br />the next capital improvement program discussions? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift agreed it would unless a developer paid the costs and that would still need <br />Council approval. He urged Council to keep in mind that any parking lot on the right of way <br />would be temporary in nature because that is within the Alameda County Transportation <br />Corridor. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if staff had uniformly addressed parking assessments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift assured Council that staff was absolutely fair in calculating fees. The only <br />reason this building is different is because of the residential use, which has a different coefficient <br />than retail or office. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if staff believed parking was adequate for the downtown area and can <br />the Cede be changed to provide more parking? Are there ways of collecting in-lieu fees when <br />a use changes? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift felt did not think there was adequate parking and described the measures that <br />have been taken to provide for the parking needs in the downtown specific plan. The Code can <br />be changed as Council desires in order to collect the fees; however that would probably stop <br />restaurants from coming into existing buildings downtown. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if the changes to the subject proposal allowing office use were significant <br />enough to require further Planning Commission review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the application was a design issue not a use issue and the architect and <br />staff believe the building will look basically the same for either use. The question is whether <br />Council is satisfied with the design. Staff has been supportive of second story office use in the <br />downtown area and have tried to get that on many other buildings. There are conditions (4, 5, <br />7, 11, 41, 46 and 87) that will need to be modified if the project is approved as office use. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked for clarification whether the in-lieu parking issue would come back before <br />Council. He believed the appeal was based on adequacy of parking and residential versus <br />commercial use. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated Council would review the in-lieu parking issue at a later date. The <br />staff traffic committee can look at the safety issues raised and there will be an overall review <br />of parking in the downtown area. <br /> <br /> -9- <br /> 10/15/96 <br /> <br /> <br />