pages: PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 12 | 8-B. Work/Live Regulations (JA). Review and consider possible modifications of Section 30-15 of the Alameda Municipal Code regulating Work Live Studios. (Continued from the meeting of January 10, 2005.) Ms. Altschuler summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mark Irons, 835 Oak, noted that he lived in a work/live space in Oakland for 10 years, which he enjoyed very much. He expressed concern about placing this complex issue on the ballot because of possible misunderstanding of the deeper issues. He noted that any legal issues may delay or indefinitely postpone any work/live spaces. He believed the current ordinance fell short of its potential, and would like to see it upgraded to be more accommodating. He hoped the Board would be slow and methodical in considering the work/live uses. Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, spoke in support of work/live uses with qualifications, and noted that he had been an architect for over 25 years. He noted that artists and architects were usually the first occupants of a redeveloped neighborhood, which eventually became upgraded for the use of other white-collar professionals. He believed that flexibility in planning the larger spaces along the Northern Waterfront and Alameda Point was appropriate for the community in the long run. He suggested that Measure A be modified to accommodate a work/live situation within appropriate zones. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Lynch noted that he supported Measure A, and inquired how Measure A and work/live lofts were in conflict. Ms. Altschuler replied that the conflict did not arise so much from the legal standing, because work/live studios were defined by both the State and local ordinances as industrial uses, as opposed to residential uses. She did not believe there was a conflict from a legal standpoint, although she believed the conflict would arise from the perception that people still live in those spaces. She added that was the basis for the argument against the uses as a Measure A conflict. Mr. Lynch recalled the opposition to the demolition of Victorians in favor of multifamily housing as being a basis for Measure A. He saw work/live as a reuse of existing structures because the economics of a formerly light industrial/commercial space had changed. He did not believe there was a conflict between work/live uses and Measure A. Ms. Altschuler noted that there would be considerable resistance to any alteration to Measure A, and that its proponents would not want to risk a slippery slope. Mr. Lynch suggested that the residential VS. industrial nature of work/live units be brought directly to a judge to define it once and for all. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |