pages: PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-03-03 | 2 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board He inquired whether a constrained view of the economic viability of the project was being presented. Mr. Stephen Proud noted that they were concentrating on the Phase I plan, but that there was flexibility in the later phases. The timing of the property delivery was an important part of the economic analysis. A community member favored the non-Measure A-compliant options, and believed that increasing the density and value of the options would be positive. He inquired about the effect of the number of parkland acreage on the acres-per-thousand-population. He inquired about the $22 million deficit. Mr. Thomas noted that the Citywide analysis had not been performed, although a similar open space analysis in the 2003 General Plan Amendment EIR had been performed. Mr. Proud noted that there was no $22 million slush fund attached to the project, and explained the expenditures needed to service the project. A community member appreciated the contrasts between the Measure A and non- Measure A options. She favored seamless integration, vibrant new neighborhoods, establishing neighborhood centers, and did not see those items in either options. She would like to see a design that worked with the mitigations that would also be economically feasible. She did not believe that Phase I followed good planning principles, and was disappointed in the design. A community member thanked staff for the illustrations of how the project would look if Measure A was modified. She preferred single-story residence designs. Mr. Proud noted that the City would acquire all the buildings when the Navy completes the ownership transfer; they are currently being leased, which is the chief source of revenue to offset the costs. A community member inquired about the time lag between property expenses and property sales, and how the money was made up. Mr. Proud noted that was the reason for having a Master Developer, who was responsible for putting in the backbone infrastructure and preparing for later property owners. A community member inquired about transportation on the Base, and inquired whether there would be bike trails. She inquired whether the parking would be maintained, and suggested that one of the large hangars could be used to accommodate large events. Mr. Thomas noted that bike routes were planned and that the site would be bike-friendly. The transportation program would be examined at the March 23, 2005 workshop. Planning Board Minutes Page 2 March 3, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-03.pdf |