pages: PlanningBoard/2008-09-22.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-09-22 | 4 | resolution, prepared by staff, grants the applicants request with modifications. A Board discussion ensued regarding previous Board decisions in 1991 and 1999 affecting this area. Board member McNamara expressed her concern regarding the wording of resolution #3 as it relates to policy 2.6.b and 2.6.g of the General Plan. As written an additional 100,000 square feet of non-water related institutional uses may be permitted, in addition to Cardinal Point. President Kohlstrand stated that it would be helpful to the Board, when deciding on these types of proposals, for staff to provide information on the number of square feet currently allocated for this type of use, and the impact approval of the proposal would have on future development in the area. Board member McNamara stated she does not support a case-by-case adjustment in the General Plan but would support a revised version of resolution #3. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does support businesses wanting to relocate to Alameda. Currently, there is an abundance of office space available in Alameda. With the limited amount of waterfront property and public access to the waterfront in Alameda, she is not inclined to support this request. Board member Cunningham supports resolution #3. He views this proposal as an adaptive reuse of an existing building. If the applicant was requesting conversion of a building from office space to a restaurant, he suspects the Board's opinion would be different. The Board has often commented on the need for public access to the water but he does not see how using this building for office space would prevent that. He believes flexibility in planning should consider the economic times uses. He would support resolution #3 with revised language. Board member Autorino stated the site has been vacant for two years, which does hurt the community. He does not believe waiting for this building to become a restaurant is prudent. He supports the application as it brings economic benefit back to Alameda and Page 4 of 10 | PlanningBoard/2008-09-22.pdf |