pages: PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2009-01-26 | 4 | of the existing buildings and the new building could possibly pollute the estuary. Mr. Woodard is concerned with the extent of traffic and pedestrian safety in the area and would like to see the site used for public recreation citing it would compliment the downtown area that is very park poor. He wonders how the project will mesh with the General Plan and the North of Lincoln Plan. The project would deny access to the shoreline and should involve the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). He mentioned that height of the structures has not been discussed. The economic impact with the loss of developer fees and concessions could total $7.5 million dollars. He suggested that the City of Alameda contact the Bay Area Open Space Council to see about funding for a park/open space project. Mr. Woodard questioned where the $1 million dollars set aside for the park project has gone. Dan Smith allocated his time to Joseph Woodard. Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) member, spoke against the project stating that she is pleased that the developer is proposing to put single family homes and duplexes on the site. Although she is not pleased that the housing plan includes the 4.5 acres zoned for the park and the over all density of the project. The City of Alameda has planned the Oak St Estuary Park since 1991 General Plan. She stated that her neighborhood is in need of a park and the parks at Alameda Point do not help the residents in this area. The park would serve all Alameda resident and is the last open space on the estuary to build a park aside from Alameda Point. She is against the developer's proposal to use the Density Bonus Ordinance to secure concessions and funding for the project and believes the City of Alameda should initiate the Quimby Law that would require the developer to donate land to the City for the park. EPAC would like to remind the City of the 2002 preliminary geotechnical investigation that reported high levels of contamination on the Fox portion of the property and there is not reason to believe that the pollution is not all over the site. She concurred with Mr. Woodard on the traffic issues in the area. Requested that the scenic view be listed as an issue and how the buildings will affect the current residents views. Shirley Smith spoke against the project stating that the neighborhood is made up of Victorian and Craftsman style homes and this high density project would adversely affect property values in the area. She is concerned that the City of Alameda does not have adequate city services to accommodate the additional residents and suggested the City look for other uses for the site, possibly a trade school or athletic club. She would like the owner of the property to tear down the buildings and fence the property to keep vandals out. Chris Lundeen is undecided on the project and lives in the immediate area. He believes that a housing development on the site will make the area nicer although is not certain if this project is the best choice due to the density. He mentioned that there is a lot of noise that comes from the processing plant across the estuary and hopes a disclosure Page 4 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2009-01-26.pdf |