pages: PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-10-09 | 11 | Ms. Sue Field, Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that the project would affect her. She would like the park to remain, and did not want the acres to be rezoned to R-4. She opposed dense housing at this site. She was very concerned about the traffic becoming more congested, and believed that her quality of life would decline if the view were to be taken away. Ms. Rebecca Redfield, EPAC, 2210 Clement Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. Her major concerns addressed the vision for the development of the area, the type of access she would like to see, and the type of traffic load experienced in that area. She would like to see a park where there was sufficient room to play ball. She believed this neglected waterfront area should be an asset for the whole community, and not just for the exclusive use of one development. She noted that Clement Avenue was an important alternative route to the Park Street Bridge. She read the following paragraph into the record: "Since the developer of Alameda Point has pulled out of the project, Alameda is presently looking for new developers. I would like to suggest the City work a land swap with Mr. Collins and let Mr. Collins develop elsewhere." Mr. Byron Lively, 1851 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He liked the idea of a park, but not for a lot of apartments. Ms. Tammy Lively, 1851 Elm Street, spoke in opposition to this project. She would like to see a park rather than a high-density apartment building. Ms. Jean Sweeney noted the area was deficient in waterfront access. She would like the area to be changed to open space and parks. Mr. Dong Kim, 1824 Elm Street, noted that development in this area may be exciting, and would be better than a parking lot, but he was concerned about the density of the project. He liked the 300 feet of public access, but was concerned about how the public could actually get to the waterfront. He was concerned about the interaction with Park Street area. He did not believe the City would benefit from the R-4 zoning with 300 units. Mr. Uwe Springborn, 2057 Eagle Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. As a parent of triplets, he was very concerns about the environmental impacts on the park, and wondered whether a more in-depth environmental study would be needed. He understood the balance between financial pressures and rights and freedoms in this country. He believed that in this case, park access was as important as the profit margin to the developer. He did not support the recommendation for no further environmental impact studies, and believed that would be necessary to see what has happened on the site in the past decades. He supported the recommendation to deny the General Plan Amendment, and he did not support the rezoning to R-4/PD. He would like to see a lower density plan. Mr. Greg Harper, applicant's attorney, Hollis Street, Emeryville, detailed the background of this project. He noted that in the past 15 years, there have been no plans to acquire any money, develop any funds, or levy any bonds necessary to acquire the park. Their Planning Board Minutes Page 11 October 9, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf |