pages: PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2010-05-24 | 4 | Board Member Kohlstrand supports an alternative that concentrates density to allow more open space in other areas. She would like to see an alternative that preserves the Least Tern habitat. She would also like to see that an analysis be done on the level of density that is required to support the essential services such as transportation, infrastructure, schools, and what additional density could support other miscellaneous amenities like a sports complex or marina. Board Member Zuppan asked that the alternatives analyze the impact of timing of toxic clean-up by the Navy on the proposed project. She stated that the current plan lacks specifics on commercial trucking impacts and the ferry terminal location. She noted that the public transit systems is precarious and is concerned about the longevity of the systems. Board Member Lynch stated that the planning process for the development has not been transparent and the public has not been given the opportunity to provide input on the proposed plan and to prioritize the important features needed and required by the community. Board Member Cook stated that the developer provided a considerable amount of public outreach and tried to build a consensus with the community, but that the process was different than the typical review process in the City and perhaps was less comprehensible to the public. President Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the proposed plan lacks specific details and assurances on transit, streetscape design, financing, housing types, sustainability plans, and historic and habitat preservation. She would like to see the EIR address wetland impacts, Least Tern habitat impacts, and historic preservation. She asked whether the proposed Veterans Administration facility could be incorporated into the SunCal development area, to facilitate job creation in the commercial areas. Board Member Zuppan is concerned that the assumptions for seismic building stability, for example cripple wall strengths, have changed since the Chilean earthquake and would now like to see that the proposed buildings are evaluated against the new set of data or requirements gleaned from that natural disaster. She would like to see that the street infrastructure be evaluated for tertiary impacts, like the width of streets being adequate for garbage trucks. She added that she does not want the rest of the City being negatively impacted by the development. She would like to see that the proposal's phased approach evaluated, as well as ongoing impacts to residents. She supports sustainability concepts, but would like to have them evaluated in the EIR, so that one could understand the environmental impacts of green systems. In addition, she supports historic preservation that is reasonably feasible. While she supports increased density, she is concerned that high-rise buildings could create turbulent wind and shading impacts. She requested that data points be developed to evaluate the economic feasibility and need for density bonuses. Board member Cook stated that the proposed development's setbacks appear to create a Planning Board Page 4 of 8 Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010 | PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf |