pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-14 | 5 | Board member McNamara noted that regarding 2.5(k), she would like clarification of the relevance of the wording "to minimize automobile trips associated with the redevelopment of Alameda Point.' Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(g) read, "To encourage retention and addition of housing in the Main Street business districts.. and inquired how the policy would be followed. Board Member Lynch liked the wording as it stood because it was clear and precise. President Cook suggested removing the word "new" and replace "community shopping centers" with the updated language to be determined. Mr. Thomas noted that this policy could be rewritten to say, "encourage retention and addition of housing in retail areas," and strike the references to the different types of centers. He noted that the 1990 General Plan made a point of not saying "in community shopping centers," and believed that reflected how community attitudes about mixed use development have changed in the last 15 years. President Cook agreed, particularly in getting people out of their cars. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that 2.5(j) read, "Support, encourage and foster new retail development to serve the west end of Alameda." She noted that since the studies had been done in 2003, there had been a lot of growth in the number of residences, and inquired whether a survey had been done to hear from the residents of that area. She inquired what the need was for grocery uses in Bayport, and what other shopping needs they had. Board member McNamara noted that she had been approached by several people, inquiring about what was happening in the West End. She inquired about the plan, and noted that it was not on the same levels as Park Street, and did not believe it was receiving the same City attention as Park Street. She questioned why (h) and (i) should be distinguished from each other. Vice President Kohlstrand believed that Park Street was more of a downtown for Alameda, which was not to diminish Webster Steet, which served more of a neighborhood base; Park Street drew more people from around the City. Board Member Lynch noted that as he read 2.5(h), he was encouraged and enlightened, and valued the property in its current state, as well as what it could become. Board Member Lynch noted that 2.5(i), he felt limited in his thought because of the wording, and suggested that 2.5(i) could be bolstered by the kind of language in 2.5(h) regarding vacated spaces. President Cook suggested receiving input from WABA. Page 5 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf |