pages: PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 6 | President Cook inquired whether different kinds of engineering solutions had been explored, such as a seismic joint to allow part of the pier to be free in an earthquake event. Mr. Thomas noted that staff was continuing to look at a number of different ways to stabilize the situation, including different technologies. They were confident, based on the work done so far, that major changes will need to be made to the promenade plan to address those two issues. He noted that Clif Bar's issues should be addressed immediately, and a condition on Clif Bar is that everything would be built to the east of Clif Bar immediately. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the Board concurred on moving the Clif Bar project forward. She believed Catellus must have an idea of the cost to do the seismic retrofit and reinforcement under the Clif Bar warehouse. She believed that would be useful if the second warehouse were to be preserved. If the equipment would be brought in to do the work on Clif Bar, it might be cost-effective to do both at the same time. Member Lynch inquired what the City's role was in terms of providing peer review. Mr. Thomas replied that the City would peer review the studies and cost estimates, if they wished to share them. Ultimately, Catellus would decide whether it would move forward with the project. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was surprised when she read the report because the Board had heard so many positive things about the project. She had assumed that they knew what was beneath the wharf. She inquired whether Catellus/Prologis was still waiting for any other test results or analyses of any of the other three phases of the project, or whether they anticipate that there will be others. She was very concerned about maintaining the relationship with Clif Bar, and believed that Alameda was very fortunate that Clif Bar wanted to do business in the City. She noted that the first amendment to the development agreement on page 5 (paragraph b), read, "In the event that the wharf building is demolished after creation of a reuse parcel. She felt very strongly that that wharf building must be preserved for Clif Bar as long as Clif Bar is interested in being a player in this project. She suggested amending the language to read: "In the event that Clif Bar elects not to occupy the wharf building, and the building is demolished after creation of a reuse parcel. She wanted to make it clear that that was not an option as long as Clif Bar was a part of this project. Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the neighborhood LEED certification was still being pursued. She inquired whether the green space closer to the water would be grass or Bay-friendly landscaping. Ms. Altschuler replied that it would be a natural landscape element, and that grass would not be put in that location. She noted that it was called a transitional marsh area, and added that one of the slides displayed the mix of natural landscaping found around the Bay. Member Ezzy Ashcraft commented on the possibility that the Miracle League portion of the project could take until the year 2016 to complete, and requested that if there was any way Page 6 of 18 | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |