pages: PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-04-28 | 15 | 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. a. Report on Alameda Point Station Area Plan Mr. Biggs presented the staff report, and noted that it was provided to the City Council by the City Manager. He noted that the report was available on the City's website. The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Howard suggested that this study was justified on the basis of having to respond to the Oakland-Chinatown lawsuit against the City of Alameda. He noted that Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement called for a study of transportation alternatives, which had been presented by the Planning Director many times that outside money was used to conduct the study to satisfy the requirements of the agreement. He hoped that the Planning Board or Planning staff would refer this study to the Oakland-Chinatown Advisory Committee for review, as part of responding to this agreement. He noted the concerns expressed by the Chinatown Agreement as part of the settlement agreement regarding automobile traffic. He noted that the transit-enhanced third alternative translated to twelve buses per hour coming out of Alameda Point, presumably mostly coming through the Tube. He believed the Advisory would want to review whether they intended to trade automobiles for buses. Mr. Howard addressed Board member Cunningham's previous comments about the balance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point, and noted that the concept was not adequately addressed in the report. He did not observe any efforts in Alameda to attract a big campus user. Regarding the Housing Element, he understood that 71% of Alameda residents left the Island to get to work each day. He noted that the top ten employers in Alameda employed only about 4,000 people out of a day population of 38,000 people. He believed that looking at more housing at Alameda Point would aggravate the current housing/jobs balance. He supported the idea of reusing the buildings, and bringing jobs at a range of pay scales that would not require people to leave the Island; he believed that might solve some of the traffic and transit considerations. Mr. Howard expressed concern that the report continued to promulgate the notion which he did not believe had been substantiated or justified, that Measure A precluded any historic buildings from being reused. He spoke specifically of the Bachelor Executive Quarters and the Bachelor Officer Quarters. He cited Article 3 of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code (Development Regulations): Multiple Dwelling Units - Rehabilitation, remodeling or alteration of existing structures provides that existing multiple dwelling units may be rehabilitated or remodeled, provided they comply with the provisions of the chapter, and no building shall be altered to increase the number of multiple dwelling units contained therein." He believed that legislation has been conveniently ignored by every study of what to do with the BEQ and the BOQ. He believed it was not substantiated that the BEQ and the BOQ could not be reused through that legislation. He believed that should be studied, and has heard Planning staff and Page 15 of 17 | PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf |