pages: PlanningBoard/2018-11-13.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2018-11-13 | 2 | Staff Member Thomas said he is not sure what they were thinking in 1991. He said state law was less precise then. He said the state has taken a much more prescriptive approach to how we treat land today. Board Member Cavanaugh asked what was really planned and developed at the Harbor Bay Business Park in the past. Staff Member Thomas said the original documents envisioned 5,000,000 sq. ft. of office space with 8-10 story buildings. He said the business park ended up with much more manufacturing and industrial space with much lower floor area ratios. He said the 0.5 FAR has always been applied along the waterfront. Board Member Curtis said that when he was involved with Harbor Bay, they never planned to build any ten story buildings because the airport would preclude that possibility. He said the FAR was put in the maintain the view corridors. He said the FAR can be violated as long as parking and landscaping and other requirements remain in place to maintain quality projects. Board Member Teague asked why a sentence explaining FAR was proposed to be removed. Staff Member Thomas said that it was just for clarity and could be left in as a definition. Board Member Teague asked if simplifying the General Plan language to refer to other documents can be done to prevent duplication and conflicts. Staff Member Thomas said that was an option. He said the plan needs to have information regarding projections. Board Member Teague pointed out other areas where the General Plan can refer to other documents like the Zoning Map. He asked a technical question regarding the Harbor Bay Business Park development agreement and looked for an interpretation of the appropriate resolutions. Staff Member Thomas said that he believes staff has been interpreting the agreement with the same intent that Board Member Teague described. Board Member Teague said the calculation about Alameda's population growth since 1990 appears to be off. He asked if the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) projections in the plan reflect recently passed housing laws by the state. Staff Member Thomas said they did not and that we do not know yet what the next RHNA will be. President Sullivan asked if the 325 units in the Guyton Settlement had already been built. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 November 13, 2018 Planning Board | PlanningBoard/2018-11-13.pdf |