pages: PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-01-08 | 14 | both options. He agreed that whether the MTC funds were used to study Measure A, it would take more money than that to complete the study. He suggested doing a noncompliant Measure A scheme to see the implications, and believed that would be prudent planning. Mr. Thomas provided background information regarding the settlement agreement that led to this study, as well as the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee and the MTC grant money. Member Mariani thanked Mr. Thomas for the clarification, because the memo distributed to the Planning Board did not contain that information. Vice President Cook believed that the study should go forward, and that the Measure A study forum should also occur. She was also interested in other aspects of the Measure A debate besides only transportation. She was very concerned about ensuring that there was a middle ground between housing for the very rich and the very poor. She inquired whether the ferry would be viable when it is moved. She supported looking at a policy such as Measure A objectively, and would like to hear all the perspectives on the issue. She was concerned about urban design issues that flowed from urban design and density. She had felt that there were places in the City where Measure A should be tightened up, and other places where it did not make sense. She supported an informational forum with a skilled facilitator. Member Kohlstrand agreed with Vice President Cook's comments, and supported having the MTC study, as well as an independent forum on Measure A. President Lynch appreciated the public comments, but was somewhat disappointed in the characterization of some of the comments that he had heard during his time on the Planning Board in that Measure A is not just about density. He noted that it was also about design, and when some people become demonized for wanting to have a public discussion, that does not mean the next step would be to overturn Measure A. He believed a discussion about an existing ordinance was entirely within the public purview. In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Thomas replied that the intent of the MTC scope of work was to gather resources and information that the City could use to inform the work that would be done by the master developer. President Lynch noted that part of the discussion was how to design the 1800 new residences, and what kind of homes they would be. He noted that the impacts on open space must also be examined with respect to placement of the homes, bike paths and transportation schemes. He noted that the answer would not be known until the possible scenarios could be laid out. He did not believe that examining these questions would necessarily lead to overturning Measure A. Member Kohlstrand believed that the standards for block sizes should be followed regardless of Measure A compliance, and that obtaining more information would be helpful. She suggested using the AC Transit guide that addressed transit-oriented design. She also met with the general manager of the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton last week, who noted that 93% of their users arrived by car. He noted that they built the development with four parking spaces per thousand square feet, and Planning Board Minutes Page 14 January 8, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-01-08.pdf |