pages: PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 7 | to move that portion of the project done ahead of time so that the children could use it as soon as possible. She added that she was encouraged by the letter of September 12, which described the benefits of the revised plan, and included the biologist's observation that "overall, the project revisions will result in a net benefit to biological resources and waters of the San Francisco Bay because of existing hardscape at and over the edge of the Bay would be removed and replaced with a restored tidal marsh area, establishing a more natural landscape to the shoreline of the inner Oakland Harbor." Member McNamara noted that Catellus was investigating the financial impact of these revisions, and believed that to split up the shoring up of the wharf, and possibly delaying the renovation of the area to the west, would not be a cost-effective solution for a developer. She did not see that as a feasible solution, and believed that the project should be examined in its entirety. She supported the changes proposed by Catellus, given the structural issues. She also liked the change that flattened the waterfront plaza, which enhances the use of the space. She liked the idea of a floating dock, which was a creative solution. She was concerned about maintenance of the water level landscaping, particularly with respect to accumulation of litter as the tide comes in. Mr. Thomas noted that the maintenance would be performed by the City, but paid for by the project. President Cook echoed Member McNamara's concern about the maintenance at the waterfront, and wanted to ensure that the responsibilities were clear. Member Lynch was confident that the design elements had been vetted, and that he was comfortable with that. He believed it was an attractive project, and was not concerned with the viability of maintaining and shoring up the wharf area. He was confident that was vetted with the City as well. He was comfortable with the EIR, and he did not believe the case had been made to warrant recirculating the EIR. He noted that he was disappointed about the placement of the Miracle League field in the third phase, to be completed in 2016, which he believed was an excessively long time, given its purpose and the need for the field. He believed the 2016 date was inconsistent with the pace and amount of energy put into the plans thus far. Vice President Kohlstrand agreed with Member Lynch's comments regarding the ball field. She wanted to maintain the relationship with Clif Bar and keep that project moving ahead; she also wanted the City to maintain its relationship with Catellus and Prologis. She did not have any issues with the revised promenade, but would like further information about how the project related to the water's edge. She believed that the loss of the warehouse was an unfortunate occurrence, and acknowledged that many people were concerned about that. President Cook inquired whether the Board was at the point of making a decision about removing that part of the pier, as well as that part of the warehouse. She suggested that the approval be phased if that were the case. Mr. Thomas replied that the plan may be approved with direction that when the later phase was presented, that the future of the wharf be re- evaluated. He understood that demolition of wharf west of Clif Bar would not start until Page 7 of 18 | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |