pages: PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-04-10 | 7 | Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Catellus did not propose this particular project in the first place. Mr. Manderfeld noted that Catellus competed with a number of developers to look at the redevelopment of this overall site. At that time, the focus was on creating a jobs/housing balance and commercial uses; there had been some retail uses sprinkled in the original project. The original proposal was before the dot-com crash, and there had been significant interest in office and R&D uses. He noted that the past chair of the EDC had commented to him that plans were meant to change. The community has since expressed its interest in more retail. Member Kohlstrand disclosed that she reviewed the proposal with the developers. Member [Ezzy Ashcraft] disclosed that she met with the developer to review the proposal, but not at the same time as Member Kohlstrand. Member Kohlstrand believed there were many positive aspects to this plan, especially the integration of varied land uses. She liked the idea of Fifth Street being used as a main spine that oriented towards Jack London Square in Oakland. She believed that having Mitchell Mosely Avenue and Tinker Avenue developed as major east-west streets on the property was a positive aspect. She expressed concern about the uses being spread apart. She noted that the predominant use was parking, and believed that concern was expressed at the workshops as well. She believed the very low density was a constraint that resulted in a lot of parking. She would rather see land reserved and not developed than having all the surface parking area. She would like better integration of the uses. Vice President Cook agreed with Member Kohlstrand's comments, and supported the mixed use concept over the office projects. She would like to see best practices for waterfront development implemented for this project, and complimented SMWM on their involvement in this project. She believed the site was overly constrained, including the influence of Measure A; she would like to see more diversity in residential uses on this site. She would prefer a greater mix of retail and housing along the waterfront that would enliven the site during non-business hours. She liked the Fifth Street developments, and believed it was an exciting notion. She expressed concern that the bioswale was not connected back to the City, and that it seemed to stop at Tinker. She liked the mix of retail, office and housing along Fifth Street and would like to see the residential pushed as close to the water as possible. She liked the amount of open space in the project. She wished that Alameda had a true civic open space where fireworks could be seen, and other civic gatherings could take place. Member McNamara inquired which building was envisioned to be a ferry building. Mr. Manderfeld noted that the building closest to the waterfront could serve in that capacity, and could have an iconic structure to it. He noted that having water in the public space was very important. Member McNamara shared the concern about the parking issue, and noted that was a lot of open space for that designation. She would support some sort of parking structure that was visually appealing. She was also concerned about the traffic flow onto and off the site, and believed expanding Mitchell Mosely Avenue would help. Planning Board Minutes Page 7 April 10, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-10.pdf |