pages: PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-02-27 | 13 | 8-B. Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment (AT). A public hearing to obtain public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan amendments. The Northern Waterfront area includes a number of properties generally located along the Oakland/Alameda Estuary between Sherman Street, Grand Street, and Buena Vista Avenue. Mr. Thomas summarized this staff report, and noted that comments were being received on the Draft EIR circulated on February 1, 2006. The public comment period will close on March 30, 2006. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Barbara Kerr, President, Northside Association, 1822 Bay, wished to address the areas adjacent to her residential area. She expressed concern about the Pacific Storage site, and added that the concentrated housing as envisioned by the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan committee had become the site for the storage company. She noted that senior housing had been envisioned for that area, and added that a major transportation hub was located at the corner of Webster and Atlantic. She requested a copy of the final minutes of the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan meeting. She added that the Association strongly supported the development of streets allowing for parking on both sides. She advised that she would submit her written comments. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Kohlstrand noted that on page 4B-1, the paragraph relating to population should be re- examined. She noted that it stated, "Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households in Alameda decreased by 1,148, or by less than 4% when compared to the 1990 base of 29,078 households." She noted that it also stated that the 2000 year base was 30,226; she believed that was an increase, rather than a decline. She noted that under the Noise Element, the noise mitigation will be taken into account on an individual project basis. She knew there were recommended guidelines in the Plan that discourage sound walls unless absolutely necessary; she wanted to leave room for other options and design treatments such as expanded setbacks. Mr. Thomas anticipated that there would be considerable discussion about this proposed policy. He noted that the City had run into problems in the past (such as the Catellus project on Atlantic), based on the current General Plan policy, it was interpreted that front yards were active recreational spaces and can be exposed to a certain amount of noise, but backyards should not be. He noted that the City hoped to make design decisions to protect yard spaces, and to put the sound wall issue to rest. Member Lynch noted that he did not agree with the last section of the Employment Section B, and added that he did not fault ABAG for the numbers provided by the City, although he may not agree with the methodology. He believed that there should be a statement that the employment numbers were not close to reality, and did not want them to affect the jobs-housing numbers in the future. President Cunningham agreed with Member Lynch's statement, especially with regard to the median home price being listed as $332,000; he wished that would be true. He did not know what the impact these incorrect numbers would have on requirements placed on the City with respect to affordable housing; he advised that current numbers be used. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding additional marinas, Mr. Thomas Planning Board Minutes Page 13 February 27, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf |