pages: PlanningBoard/2013-01-28.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2013-01-28 | 3 | Chuck Kapelke, resident, stated the project should include an urban forest between various neighborhoods to provide corridors for wildlife. He feels the existing condition at Alameda Point has "interesting" aesthetic qualities and he sees value in the historic buildings. He supports coordination with the VA NEPA process and questions the "loss" of the wildlife refuge on the maps. Larry Tong, East Bay Regional Park District, stated that the East Bay Regional Park District owns the Bay Trail within the AP project site, along with other facilities south of West Hornet Avenue. EBRPD looks forward to working with the City and participating in the plan. Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope, reiterated that the plan should provide more housing, a minimum of 4,500 units stating that the development will depend on housing because the employment aspect is uncertain. She stated that multifamily housing generates less greenhouse gases than single-family units and the streets should be narrow with more bikeways, transit, and parks. Jon Spangler, resident, stated the EIR must evaluate hazardous materials because Alameda Point is a Superfund site. He agrees that the plan should have more housing and while he supports the 4,500 units others have suggested, he could live with 3,000 to 3,500 units if carbon emissions are shown to be lower. He is concerned that the Navy's cleanup of Alameda Point is not good enough as the members of the Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) have mentioned, and with regards to future parks and housing people need the ability to garden in the ground and not in pots. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 32, Alameda Point should reduce the City's carbon footprint. He believes the development should meet LEED standards, as per the Calthorpe Plan which should be an alternative in the EIR. The City will have to find other sources of funding to provide Bus Rapid Transit to Fruitvale BART and downtown Oakland. He supports coordination with the VA NEPA process and questions the "loss" of the wildlife refuge on the maps. The EIR should address environmental justice issues raised previously. George Humphreys, Reuse Advisory Board (RAB), stated the sea level rise will be 5 feet by the year 2100, and beyond that are recurring large storms, such as the winter 1861-62 during which storms lasted from December into February. He believes that Alameda Point developers should be required to raise the land by 5 feet to account for sea level rise. He questioned building high-density development in a flood-prone area like Alameda Point. He stated that there is contamination in the Seaplane Lagoon and also radioactive contamination underground in Building 5 and a plume of groundwater contamination in Area 25, Coast Guard North. Also in the Town Center, the Navy is only cleaning up the area to industrial standards, which will take 15 years. Susan Galleymore, RAB, stated the EIR should address the effects of contamination on residents, visitors, and employees at Alameda Point and there should be an analysis of the interaction of multiple contaminants acting together. She mentioned NASA's Environmental Issues Management Plan for the former Moffett Field. Lois Pryor, resident, agreed with past speakers regarding the housing and the plan should Approved Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 January 28, 2013 | PlanningBoard/2013-01-28.pdf |