pages: PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-02-11 | 4 | There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. With respect to the slide depicting the preferred option, Board Member Lynch inquired how the project would be funded, Ms. Hawkins replied that it had started with S.T.I.P. funds, which paid for the CalTrans environmental work and the design. Measure B funding paid for the feasibility study and the current PSR. In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch whether MTC was involved with any of the funding decisions, Ms. Hawkins replied that all funding went first through the CMA for the County, then MTC for all the counties, and finally to the CTC. The City of Oakland was also involved as an active partner, originally by the Planning branch and recently by the engineers. Board Member Lynch strongly urged the organizations working on this project to send a letter to the City of Oakland, and he believed it was reprehensible that one branch of their city government was not aware or supportive of what another branch was doing of a project this nature. He noted that to think an applicant would move forward in their Planning Department with entitlements of such a major project showed a lack of leadership from their most senior elected individuals, as well as their Planning Department. He would like to have a response with respect to that's situation, and he believed that from a planning perspective, Alameda tried to encourage the ability to work together. As a taxpayer, he found the situation reprehensible and noted that there were significant public dollars at work. He believed that the City of Oakland's objectives with respect to this planning process must be made clear to the public. Otherwise, he would not support moving forward if the City of Oakland was not clear about their objective. Ms. Hawkins noted that at the joint meeting between the Alameda and Oakland Councilmembers, Oakland Public Works and Planning had attended, and that everyone was supportive of the project. She added that they were aware that it was critical that this project remain open. She suggested that the City of Alameda send a letter stating its belief that it be continued, to ensure that the differences were being communicated. She was not sure whether the new planner had read the feasibility study, which was being refined. Board Member Lynch encouraged the City Attorney's office in Oakland to offer its thoughts, because he believed that it was not a takings case, but the applicant may suggest that it was. He noted that he would not support any motion moving forward, if the City of Oakland's Mayor's Office, City Attorney, and Planning Director were not in favor of this; he believed these decision-making bodies must be involved in an entitlements case. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed frustration that so many options had been eliminated. She inquired whether it would be possible to have a written mutual agreement of understanding, and whether it would be necessary to have a stronger instrument than meetings between Councilmembers. She believed that the Tube backups were a regional Page 4 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf |