UPDATED BELOW, scroll!
Taking a break from Alameda Point for a bit, even though tonight at the Planning Board meeting, the PB will be considering a recommendation from the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (OCAC) to direct staff to commence work on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As to who will be footing the cost of that EIR: SunCal.
Remember the scuffle over the house on Buena Vista that the owners didn’t want, it wasn’t technically “historic.” Well the project that depended on the Buena Vista house not being there is asking for a variance and undergoing a design review, which can only mean one thing: renderings! The project appears to be named Park Vista Plaza or Park Vista Square. Personally they should just call it Cavanaugh since most people will probably refer to it as the old Cavanaugh Motors site.
Just to give some perspective the building on the right is the Alameda Marketplace so the street that goes straight into the horizon line is Buena Vista.
As the owner is requesting a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces, staff is suggesting that the site owner work with the Alameda Marketplace on a shared parking plan which would allow for more landscaping. As the Buena Vista Street parking lot for the Marketplace will sit next to the parking lot for this project it would make sense for there to be a shared lot that could accommodate customers for both sites rather than separate lots for the separate sites.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance and the Major Design Review. Personally, I’m rather excited about this project. It will be nice to have businesses to complement and support the Alameda Marketplace. By the way, I am fascinated by the drying racks of beef in the Alameda Marketplace.
Quick update, the Cavenaugh project has been continued to a later date by request of the applicant, so, not tonight folks.
Lauren,
I’m not aware that the building on Buena Vista was found by anybody to not be historic, technically or otherwise.
The HAB found that it met the requirements to remain on Alameda’s historic study list and the rules for demolition preclude houses on the list. Further, I think the HAB felt the house also met the criteria for the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation which is our basic code for findings. It is not on the National Historic Registry which is a whole other level of historic qualification.
I’m not aware that the Council found the building to be technically not historic, just in the way of progress and economic development. I don’t want to reopen a discussion on the house and I am not second guessing Council, I am just making what I believe to be a technical correction. If the text of the Council’s motion did state the reason the building being non-historic as reason for their decision, I think that’s erroneous, but frankly I’m too lazy to dig up the video.
Comment by Mark Irons — September 28, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
I guess if Council used a term like non-historic I would be second guessing THAT by calling it erroneous, but authorizing demo on other grounds is their call.
Comment by Mark Irons — September 28, 2009 @ 12:33 pm