pages: CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-09-07 | 21 | Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter relocation; the Animal Shelter relocation would cost between $1.2 million and $3 million; the Corporation Yard relocation would be approximately $2 million; inquired where funding would come from. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded $376,000 is budgeted for a relocation study; stated a process would be needed to outline how the City would successfully relocate and construct the facilities. The Interim Executive Director stated costs would not be known until studies are completed; the City has real estate assets that are not used to the highest, best use; conversations need to address the fact that the Animal Shelter needs to move and the Corporate Yard location is not logical; that she has some financing ideas. Chair Johnson stated the entire northern waterfront is blighted; public waterway access has been very limited. Speaker: Andy McKinley, Grand Marina and Alameda resident. Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. McKinley is using other property to satisfy parking requirements for his property. Mr. McKinley responded right now, the parking problem has no solution; stated that he is proposing everything west of the northern extension of Paru Street be excluded. Commissioner Matarrese stated the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter need to be relocated; the area is complex; that he is not sure the ENA is the solution; that he sees a couple of incompatibilities: the area has a full service marina and shops in the Alaska Packers Building, which needs repair and investment; parking needed to maintain the shops is being eaten up by development; the Boat Yard generates noise; having houses next to a boat yard would result in a collision; mixed use sounds great in an urban planning textbook, but somebody is going to lose at some point; the ENA could be a tool to see what is feasible and practical; his yardstick would measure whether a true mixed use development would work. The Interim Executive Director inquired whether the waterfront plan states mixed use. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded mixed use is noted in the General Plan; stated the property is zoned residential. Chair Johnson stated staff ought to take another look at the zoning; the issue is similar to the Catellus project. Commissioner deHaan stated that he agrees; perhaps some retail would be needed Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 3 Improvement Commission September 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf |