pages: PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-08-11 | 4 | changes that have taken place in the restaurant business over the years. He supports the applicants' request. Cheryl Canaday, owner of Recovery Resources in San Leandro and Alameda resident, spoke in favor of the proposal. Should the applicants proposal be approved she would lease the space. She has 25 employees and is prevented from moving to other affordable office locations in Alameda because of the parking requirements that are imposed on a business with this number of employees. She lives and pays taxes in Alameda and would like to relocate her business here. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Cunningham asked whether the option exists for a conditional use to allow office space for a specified period of time rather than a wholesale change to the area. Staff responded that the General Plan is not a timed document. Office use is permitted in this area so zoning is not the issue. The General Plan prevents this use in this area. President Kohlstrand asked if the proposal were approved what percentage of space in this area would be office space? Staff did not have that information available. Board member Cunningham stated the goal of the Planning Board is to activate the waterfront and he is in support of staff's position to want to retain this site as a restaurant. He does not believe an office use at this site precludes waterfront access. He is concerned that the property is vacant and with approval of the proposal, the space would be occupied. From an economic perspective, it would make sense to put the space to use. If the proposal were approved, he would like to retain the option to convert the site to restaurant use. Vice President Ezzy Ashcarft stated that the Board had often heard comments from residents regarding limited waterfront access in Alameda. She believes with proper marketing people would patronize a restaurant in this area. In the Marina Village Parkway there is a glut of available office space as well as in other parts of Alameda. She believes with the plans for Alameda Landing this area will generate more foot traffic. She is concerned about preserving waterfront access. Board member Lynch stated that he believes this proposal is a good case study of vacuum planning. This is a case of economics and general plan designations. The General Plan is a City's guide for future planning. General Plan Amendments are limited to four a year. In this case he believes a General Plan Amendment is the correct way to go. A viable business has departed and the use has changed. Development of Alameda Point opens up residential and commercial opportunities. He would not support a proposal for residential use at this location but office use would not prevent waterfront Page 4 of 21 | PlanningBoard/2008-08-11.pdf |