pages: PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 11 | be the argument made by the developer. If there was a situation with a contract that has already been agreed to, two different parts of the same city would say different things, creating a conflict. At that point, the developer's argument will be that the provision in the development agreement was what they would be bound to, rather than the condition imposed by the Planning Board. Mr. Thomas noted that staff understood Mr. Berry's statement that the development agreement would rule in this case, and that the City has allowed it. He added that an EIR was performed, and that these were not historic buildings. The City was essentially asking the applicant to think about this issue one more time upon their return, which may be up to 10 years. Mr. Berry understood what the City was asking for, and he believed that would be possible. Mr. Thomas noted that a third condition would be added, reading, "Where there are substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies containing the conditions of this approval, on the one hand, or the development agreement or disposition development agreement on the other hand, the provisions of the development agreement and disposition agreement and mitigation monitoring reporting program as applicable shall govern.' In response to an inquiry by Member Mariani why that condition should be added, Mr. Thomas replied that it was for clarity. Member Mariani responded that she could not make the motion if it included that condition. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would be able to make the motion. President Cook noted that the original motion should be withdrawn before a substitute motion may be made. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan amendment, and a Development Agreement amendment to revise the design of the proposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing Project. The following conditions will be added: 1. "Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3 development plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the Phase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse." 2. "Where there are substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies containing the conditions of this approval, on the one hand, or the development agreement or disposition development agreement on the other hand, the provisions of the development agreement and disposition agreement and mitigation monitoring reporting program as applicable shall govern.' Page 11 of 18 | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |