pages: PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2011-01-24 | 7 | Mr. Thomas stated that staff is currently working on the scope of work for the consultants and are only working on a 6 month long scope to get the project to July 2011. President Ezzy Ashcraft opened the public comment period. Tony Daysog spoke in favor of the process and enjoyed the Community Workshops and the energy around the project. He also mentioned that he thinks LBNL is a great opportunity as long as there are no container trucks. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), referenced a letter that the AAPS send to the Planning Board stating that they strongly recommend adaptive reuse of the historic buildings at Alameda Point and listed a number of uses that would be good for those buildings. He stated that long term leases of the historical buildings would allow the tenants to make improvements to those deteriorating buildings. Nancy Hird, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), spoke in favor of keeping all 62 of the historic buildings. She was disappointed that a large amount of the workbook was focused on housing and she would like to see other uses at Alameda Point. Gretchen Lipow mentioned that there has been a high degree of community engagement in the process so far with five well attended community meetings, two held by the group "Moving Forward" and the three done by the City. Also two well attended bus tours were held by AAPS. Karen Bey spoke in favor of the "Going Forward" process. She also believes that LBNL would be a driver for the development at Alameda Point. She is concerned that there is no revenue source other than the City to pay for this expensive process. Jeremy Waen, Presidio Graduate School, spoke in favor of renewable energy generation at Alameda Point. He believes there are a lot of opportunities at Alameda Point. President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period. Vice President Aurorino stated that the development of Alameda Point is going to come at a cost. He would love it to be a recreation area but that it is not feasible, there is going to need to be housing to pay for the items the community wants out there. He stated that many people are not happy with the Harbor Bay Isle development but all of the parks, trails and other amenities were paid for by the residential development. Board member Kolhstrand stated that she believes there is an environmental cost associated with the way Harbor Bay Isle was developed by completely separating the residential from all other uses demanding that people need to get in their cars to go APPROVED MEETING MINUTES 7 OF 8 PLANNING BOARD 1/24/2011 | PlanningBoard/2011-01-24.pdf |