pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 8 | Zac Bowling said how much he liked this project. He liked that it would create a community around a tavern-like meeting place. He also liked that since it was on the western side of Webster it gave something for the Bay Port residents and the new neighbors at Alameda Point a place to walk to. He loved that it was next to the Cross Alameda Trail and the bus line which would help discourage car use. He added that any new growth on Webster was better for Alameda. Kiran Patel, General Manager and one of the owners of the Rodeway Inn, said he was still concerned about the noise since the tavern was still scheduled to be open until 2 am. He discussed how noise travels and that the vibrations of the noise were a concern as well. He was also concerned about parking since the tavern would not have its own parking lot. He worried that the tavern's patrons would end up parking there anyway and his staff would spend their time as parking attendants. He was not sure what number Mr. Cukierman had used but he was easily reachable by phone and was more than happy to discuss the parking issue with him. Mr. Patel and Mr. Cukierman verified phone numbers. President Teague asked that they coordinate that offline, he then closed public comment and opened board discussion and potential action. Board Member Curtis said it was a good-looking project and a good gateway for Alameda. He felt that his concerns about parking, patronage, and timing had been answered. He said this was a tremendous addition for Alameda and the Webster Street area and he would vote for this. Board Member Cisneros was sympathetic to the neighbor and their concerns about noise. She fully supported this project and wanted to move forward with it and hoped the applicant could work with the neighbor on those concerns. Board Member Hom brought up that at the approval of the Use Permit there had been a condition added that allowed the Planning Board and or city staff to review the Use Permit after 12 months to see if there were any noise issues. He hoped that condition would result in the applicant being responsible and making sure any noise issues don't get out of hand. He thought the revised design was very positive, he thought the sloped roof had a dramatic look and gave a nice entry element as people exited the Webster Tube. He appreciated the life this project would bring to that area of Webster. Board Member Ruiz knew this was a design review and that the Use Permit had already been approved; however, she was extremely disappointed that the applicant had made no concerted effort to reach out to neighbors about the parking issue. She pointed out that the applicant had had six months to do so and questioned if the applicant was in good faith trying to push the project forward. She did acknowledge that this was not what was being discussed at hand, they were only reviewing the architecture. She assured the applicant that the Use Permit would be reviewed after they had been in operation. Board Member Rothenberg appreciated all the comments and input and concurred with them. She said if it was as nice as their Oakland location, which she had been to, it would be a welcomed addition to Alameda. Provided of course they take into account all the good neighbor comments and conditions that had been discussed. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 8 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |