pages: CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf, 17
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 17 | extension issues, or 2) work on parallel tracks. however, there are not two approaches; the NWSP is to come before the Council in January; there is not a rush to do the ENA; the ENA could come back in January; there is a case for working rapidly on parallel tracks; the City has done so successfully in the past with the Catellus project; that he would encourage a commitment to more public input ; although an ENA might not be approved tonight, it is not the end i the NWSP will be presented and the Concept Plan can be compared very soon. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she understands why staff is proposing the ENA, but approving the ENA now would be the wrong order; noted ENAs have been used in the past when someone does not own the property. The Development Services Director stated 6.78 acres are Tidelands property controlled by a City lease and not owned by Mr. Wang. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a project application should be submitted before considering a subsidy; the City should not commit to prioritizing staff time to a project in the concept stage. ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Councilmember/ Commissioner Daysog about moving a number of northern waterfront elements along together however, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board have brought creative concepts to reality in the past, which allows many opportunities for public comment ; the NWSP should be in place before the boards consider the matter an ENA is premature until the concept goes through the process and there is a project; an appropriate project could be brought to the CIC after being sifted and vetted; the community would have an additional opportunity to comment when the matter is brought back to the CIC to determine if the project is worth the benefit. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he does not want to discourage Mr. Wang from going forward with the creative project; the concept has not been flushed out in its entirety his concern is the departure from the past practice; the sequencing is different the procedure needs to be approved if it is the mode in which developments are going to be done; the current procedures in place should be followed; there should be an in-depth discussion, if the development mechanism is changing; the existing process works or should be addressed as an agenda item if it does not work; an ENA is not appropriate; urged Mr. Wang to go forward; stated the Planning and Building Department needs to work with Mr. Wang to make it happen, flush out options and give the community an opportunity for involvement moving forward. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 5 Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |