pages: PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-07-24 | 14 | She believed there was some retreat from the language requiring a mix of uses, and noted that page 9 should include "residential uses" along the water's edge. She would like "up to 50,000 square feet of additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area" to read 'a minimum of 50,000 square feet of additional waterfront retail uses in the commercial area." Dan Marcus addressed Vice President Cook's concerns, and noted that they were concerned about making a specific commitment regarding specific numbers of residential uses along the waterfront. Based on working with their waterfront consultant, months of work within the community and with staff, and listening respectfully to Vice President Cook's request for a specific number of residential units on the waterfront, they believed that the Master Plan's language to allow residential on the waterfront in the future, but not require a specific number of units was the most appropriate compromise. President Cunningham suggested that the ability to permit residential should be included in the language. Member Lynch suggested adding the wording "commercial and residential" without specifying a certain number of residential units. Member Kohlstrand noted that she had been overwhelmed by the amount of documentation accompanying this project, and was impressed by the favorable public testimony. She expressed concern about the street cross sections, and hoped for an extension to the other streets. She would like to have a forum where the transportation issues in the Master Plan could be addressed in more detail. Member McNamara's expressed concern about the parking issue. She would like to see some sort of parking structure, or would like to make some open space as an option if the parking spaces were not required. She expressed concern about the circulation or transportation flow, and how it will integrate with current Webster Street traffic. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this was a very exciting project, but added that the project should not be rushed because of Clif Bar's deadline without ensuring it was the highest quality project possible. She was strongly concerned about parking, and did not believe the design team had been as responsive to the Board's concerns as in other areas. She would like a better solution to the parking issue. She did not want the parking areas to resemble an asphalt jungle, and was very concerned about the aesthetic elements of this project. She noted that if there were a modification in Measure A, there could be more residential over retail incorporated into the current plan. Vice President Cook shared the concerns about parking, and how the project could be a true mixed use project. She believed Subareas 2 and 3 should have 100% second story mixed use, as opposed to 50 percent. She was also concerned about the height of the project, especially the 85-foot office buildings, which would be higher than anything in the mainland of Alameda. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 July 24, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-07-24.pdf |