pages: PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-01-09 | 11 | 9-C. Appointment of Planning Board member to the Golf Course Committee. Board member McNamara inquired whether this appointment was necessary at this time, given the fact that there had been no meetings during her two-year tenure on the Board. Ms. Eliason advised that it had been formed for the Alameda Point Golf Course, which is not an active proposal at this time. She advised that the Board may wait to appoint another representative, which became vacant upon Mr. Piziali's departure. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee. President Cunningham noted that there had been no meetings. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board member Mariani advised that she brought the Planning Board's concerns from the previous meeting before the Committee, particularly regarding the increased construction and development. She agreed with Board member Lynch's assessment that the development was heading up, instead of out. She noted that Oakland did not have a Transportation Commission, and another member of the Committee who worked for the City of Oakland had been surprised that there was no Transportation Commission. She noted that they were working on a recommendation to the Oakland Planning Commission and the Alameda Planning Board for a comprehensive transportation planning document for Chinatown, prepared by the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee. Board member Kohlstrand noted that this would be an issue that the new Planning & Building Director would be able to address with the Planning Director of the City of Oakland, in order to coordinate the issues; the Public Works Directors may wish to become involved as well. Board member Lynch advised that he was not a naysayer, nor was he taking a position against any development in Oakland; he strongly encouraged development for a variety of reasons. He raised the questions because he would like to see the same amount of deference paid to Alameda. He noted that when Alameda chose to develop, he found it extraordinarily hypocritical for anyone in Oakland to suggest that Alameda lacked sensitivity traffic or other needs, when Oakland is developing at full-tilt. He believed that was a primary issue, which he believed should be addressed by the Alameda County Planning Board Minutes Page 11 January 9, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-01-09.pdf |