pages: PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 11 | Ms. Helen Sause commended the Planning Board on initiating this committee, and was dismayed that previous speakers seemed to have assumed a foregone conclusion. She noted that the Homes organization was only interested in modifying Measure A for Alameda Point, and emphasized that they did not intend to destroy Measure A throughout the City. Mr. Scott Brady believed the framework for this discussion had been laid in staff's development of an Alameda Point Measure A compliant and non-Measure A compliant plan. He did not believe that staff should create contingencies not in accordance with the City Charter. He believed that discussion of Measure A, which was a citizen-driven amendment, should be citizen-driven, not staff-driven. He noted that it was not only about housing and saving old homes - it was also about limiting density, abating increasing traffic congestion and controlling development that was designed by developers contrary to public input. Mr. Jim Sweeney expressed concern about the possibility of mischief regarding Measure A, and believed it would skew the purpose of the Planning Board's role as a unit. He noted that the subcommittee would function as an advocate, not an adjudicator. He did not believe there was an imperative to further study Measure A, and believed it had been done. He believed the citizens had to be an important part of this discussion, and wanted to retain impartiality and clarity in this discussion. Mrs. Jean Sweeney provided a history of how ABAG obtained its housing numbers. She did not see a major plan to solve the traffic problem at Alameda Point, and was very concerned about the toxic materials in that area. She noted that the Navy would not address the PAHs or marsh crust on that site. She believed the traffic problem should be solved before any more houses were planned, and she did not believe that Measure A needed to be studied any further. Ms. Dorothy Freeman believed that reexamining Measure A was a citizen item, not a staff item. She cited a study that concluded that increased density provided only a short- term benefit. She believed that the long-term effects of increased density should be studied further before implementing higher density in Alameda. Ms. Barbara Kerr did not believe that a Measure A forum was necessary because it had already been voted on. She did not believe that it should be overturned in order to meet a bureaucratic deadline. She recalled the 1980 Housing Element had been badly written, and that it was subsequently rewritten by citizens on a committee that she chaired. She noted that was the last Housing Element that had been approved by the State. She noted that friends of the developers could get signatures for a ballot measure to overturn Measure A. She believed that until Alameda had more bridges and tubes, that Measure A should not be discussed further. Ms. Denise Brady concurred with Ms. Kerr's comments, and believed that if the citizens of Alameda wanted to overturn Measure A, they could bring it to the ballot box. She noted that when Mayor Johnson ran for reelection, she prominently displayed her support Planning Board Minutes Page 11 March 26, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |