pages: PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-10-22 | 3 | Mr. Phil Tagami, Managing Partner, California Capital Group, summarized his involvement with the site and the team, as well as their plans for this process. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Mariani noted that she was impressed with the presentation, and hoped that the idealistic nature of the presentation materialized. Mr. Kelleher wished to clarify that as a team, they walk down a path that they know they can deliver. Member Lynch noted that their presentation was laudable, but that the numbers still had to be resolved at the end of the day. He noted that it was important to define the planning terms so they may be understood by the public. He noted that the end product must be economically viable. Mr. Kelleher agreed with Member Lynch, and noted that in community planning, they present various scenarios that identify various levels of participation by the public sector. He believed there were different scenarios for this site, with different levels of density with different attributes such as transit, sustainability elements, community scale and walkability. He believed it was valuable to offer a broad range of choices. Member Cunningham believed that it was important for the community to understand what the developer is trying to achieve, and that it was not just about money. He believed there were larger community issues to consider as well, and encouraged the developer to continue to be open with the Planning Board. He noted that they will find polarized opinions at both ends, and hoped that the City would not have to settle for mediocrity in the process of striking a balance. He believed the new ideas sounded very exciting, and that a more holistic approach is being used. In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether the PDC was being discarded, Mr. Kelleher replied that they were not doing so, and that they would not be able to execute their plans without the previous site work being done. Their challenge was to qualify the assumptions that were made in the PDC, mainly geotechnical, flood plain and hydraulic work that was assumed in the PDC, but have proven to be not viable. He acknowledged that they needed to characterize the site better. He noted that it was very important to educate the public in this project so they can understand the project better. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that SunCal stated that it did not do much vertical development, and requested further detail of that concept. Mr. Kelleher noted that they prepared the ground and the infrastructure, and delivered a finished pad to a builder, who will come in and build the structure. Member McNamara noted that she had expected more detail of the developer's vision, and that it was very abstract, conceptual and idealistic. She inquired whether the project was Page 3 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf |