pages: PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2010-05-10 | 6 | Board Member Kohlstrand asked for clarification if the City's intent is to continue the DDA based on the basis of the proposed plan. Ms. Ott confirmed this and stated that the DDA is indeed predicated on a scope of work, such as this plan. In order to properly negotiate the terms of the DDA, the involved parties need to have a good understanding of the needs and desires of the Planning Board and other parties at large. The purpose of presenting the project to the Planning Board is to receive input on the proposed plan. Board Member Lynch asked whether the DDA has to be submitted or approved by July 20th, 2010. Ms. Ott explained that the DDA or best offer statement has to be submitted to the City, but the decision on this DDA or best offer statement can be made after the July 20th, 2010 deadline. If the DDA or best offer statement and the Navy Term Sheet are submitted, then the ENA can automatically be continued and the development process can continue without further deadlines. Board member Cunningham asked if the Board is being asked to provide comments on the EIR and the proposed development plan. Ms. Ott confirmed that this was the purpose of this Planning Board meeting. Board member Cook supports allowing maximum flexibility for land uses, but finds that the proposed design guidelines are insufficient to ensure high quality development that will be compatible with the rest of Alameda. She also recommends developing a phasing document that clearly outlines which buildings will be retained, what uses will be allowed in Planning Board Page 6 of 8 Meeting Minutes 5/10/2010 | PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf |