pages: CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 13 | Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned that the proposed ordinance does not put a cap on the number of square feet; he understands the unintended consequences that a cap would place on the reuse of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center warehouse, Del Monte Building, and Naval Air Station hangers; suggested using the smallest square footage of historic buildings as the threshold for not allowing more than 10% non-taxable items; stated that he would like to have the historic buildings called out because said buildings require special attention. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there was any discussion regarding the superstore issue at the Planning Board level. The Supervising Planner responded the Del Monte Building is 250,000 square feet; redevelopment plans include a grocery store; typically, grocery stores are between 30,000 and 50,000 square feet; additional requirements were put into the findings which would require reviewing how a project would affect the economic vitality of existing businesses; the City would have the discretion to say whether a project is right for Alameda or not superstores were addressed in a more general manner. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council could approve the Planned Development Amendment and give direction for the Planning Board to review the superstore issue and call out the large historical buildings stated that she has an interest in the matter but does not want to hold up the process. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative stated alternatively additional language could be added to the second reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Planning Board has been involved and connected with the matter ; she does not want Council or staff to craft language without input and discussion from the Planning Board; the matter could be placed on a Planning Board agenda in order to have more public discussion. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember Gilmore regarding historic buildings; Council gave direction on a grocery component in a massive store; language was provided to staff and the Planning Board. Councilmember deHaan stated that sales leakage should be discussed; entitlements have been made in various areas; studies have shown that Alameda does not need more than one more grocery store even with full build-out; a lot of data is available; balancing leakage is important. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 March 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |