pages: PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2019-02-25 | 5 | said that when they did look at it, they all said it was designed to discourage the building a boatyard at Alameda Marina. Nancy Hird, SAWW, said a boatyard operator she knows says the RFQ makes clear the developer does not want a boatyard operator. She distributed a letter outlining SAWW's requests. She said the developer needs to provide the improvements and not place that burden on an operator. Peter Brand said reading the RFQ is painful and intimidating. He said it was not sent to the most obvious candidates. He offered to help amend the RFQ and generate an appropriate distribution list. There were no other public speakers. President Sullivan closed the public hearing. Board Member Rothenberg said the boatyard infrastructure should be conditioned and incorporated into the sequencing of the open space plan. Staff Member Thomas said that they will have that condition first in the open space plan. He said they are trying to coordinate all the different agency approvals that the project will need. Board Member Teague said it seems like there could be changes to the current process. He said that if the current process does not get results, when the applicant comes back he would be looking at ideas to have them hire someone to design the boatyard for them and then they could directly seek an operator. President Sullivan made a motion to have the RFQ reissued with: a situation analysis, separate the details about the next steps which would be required of finalists, the City approves the RFQ before it is issued, and that the distribution list be reviewed by stakeholders (suggesting Peter Brand), all documents be included in the packet rather than just website links, and advertising in key publications be required. Board Member Teague raised a point of order that the board can provide direction but that the item is not agendized to have a formal motion made tonight. Board Member Curtis said the board's role is to provide input but not to micromanage how the developer implements the suggestions. Staff Member Thomas summarized the feedback he heard and outlined options to amend and reissue the RFQ while other pieces of the project continue through the regulatory process. He said he does not want people to get the message that the RFQ is discouraging a boatyard. He said he would like to report back to the Planning Board at the next meeting after meeting with the developer. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 11 February 25, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-02-25.pdf |