Comments on: UPDATED Attorney raises legal questions about Point plan

By: Ken George

Ken George — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:28:05 +0000

Oh Goodie! Let’s everyone sue everyone else. Stupid stupid stupid… Oh.. anyone think to mention the 9,000 housing units being built on the Oakland side of the estuary and how, even before completion, they are already impacting traffic through the tubes and at the 880 on-ramps. Anyone care to discuss the idiocy of not including a Downtown Oakland/Broadway/Jack London Square when the 880/Cypress freeway was rebuilt? Bottom line is that we’d all be better off talking about how to do these things in a sensible way rather than making lawyers rich trying to stop others from doing them.

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:25:08 +0000

Your original post only referred to a change in the number of homes, not an increase in the industrial and commercial space. I was simply pointing out that your math did not make sense based on the information you presented in your post. Note that I did not disagree with your basic premise that SunCal’s proposed revision will generate more traffic, and I am actually opposed to the development (mainly because of the traffic implications).

By: David Howard

David Howard — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:29:27 +0000

Jill – do you have an estimate of the total vehicle trips under the new plan?

Your comment just begs the question of the need for an EIR on this project before it goes to a vote of the people.

SunCal’s project proposes 2.6 times as many people/houses and 33% more (9000 to 10,000 over 6000) jobs. The APCP plan for 1,897 homes included 500,000 sq feet of industrial and commercial space – the new plan includes 2,500,000 sq feet of commercial space. (Or is it 3.1 million square feet?) There is 6 times as much commercial space included in the new plan.

Here’s an excerpt from an East Bay Express article on the old plan:

Over the next fifteen years, the Partners hope to build some 1,600 units of housing, four and a half million square feet of industrial and commercial space, and more than 100,000 square feet of retail shops on the 775 acres now called Alameda Point.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/escape_from_alameda_point/Content?oid=283018

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:04:53 +0000

Obviously the vast majority of the estimated 29,000 trips per day was from non-residential development, because each home is not going to generate anywhere near 15 trips to Oakland per day. Although more homes will no doubt generate more traffic, it is unlikely that 3103 additional homes will generate an additional 29,000 vehicle trips per day. While your point has validity, your numbers are flawed.

By: David Howard

David Howard — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:32:09 +0000

We have indeed been talking about the Oakland Chinatown agreement for some time, and brought it up with SunCal and the Planning Board at meetings many times since SunCal became involved. We specifically encouraged the planning board to bring it up with the joint alameda-oakland-chinatown advisory committee group that was set-up pursuant to the settlement agreement.

For some insight into the trip generation from development at Alameda Point and Alameda Landing, click on my name. Documents commissioned by the City of Alameda – chiefly DEIR documents – show the tens of thousands of trips the City’s own consultants have said will be generated. 29,000 vehicle trips per day based on 1,897 homes at Alameda Point, under the old plan. (No DEIR for SunCal’s plan yet.) If the number of homes is 5,000 or so, roughly 2.6 times 1,897 homes, it’s fair to say the number of trips generated will be double that from an 1,897 home development, or even more.

Again, with the exception of extrapolating from 1,897 homes to 5,000 homes, these numbers are City of Alameda numbers, not ours.

By: Jayne Smythe

Jayne Smythe — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:53:39 +0000

People have been mentioning the Chinatown agreement on other blogs for over a year! Alameda is responsible to Oakland/Chinatown under previous agreements for TRAFFIC. Everybody has been ignoring that elephant in the room, or smooth talking it away like it doesn’t exist. You put as much new residential and (okay, yeah, we KNOW it will be empty forever) commercial in at the Point as this SunCal plan, what you think that does to the streets in Chinatown? If you all have been waiting for the other shoe to drop and thinking it was coming from Action Alameda or SOCA or whatEVER, then you have NOT been behind the 8-ball!