The Alameda Marina on Clement Avenue could soon be the site of up to 760 new homes, despite many wanting the area to remain a working waterfront and not become a housing community, the East Bay Times reports.

As some members of the Planning Board have stated, it could be difficult to keep the marina as-is, due to the infrastructure having deteriorated so much over time, per the East Bay Times.

Courtesy of The Alamedan

Along with 760 new homes, the plan calls for the 42-acre marina to undergo upgrades on shoreline breakwaters, bulkheads, and piers. The development effort might also include 250,000 square feet for maritime commercial use, as well as four acres of public open space along the Oakland Estuary.

Some Alameda residents, however, are adamant that the proposed changes would hurt the Alameda waterfront’s identity as a place that welcomes boaters with open arms. Kristopher Koster, a member of Alameda’s Planning Board, expressed regret about the possible changes to come. 

“We are an island community,” he told the East Bay Times. “We have kind of a duty to keep that heritage here in Alameda.” 

However, Koster acknowledged that even without the possible housing, the deteriorating infrastructure could cause the marina, more than half of which is owned by Bay West Development and Pacific Shops, Inc., to disappear. 

Planning Board member Ron Curtis voiced another perspective, saying that residents should hear the possible benefits of housing developments before rejecting them over the possibility of more traffic or too many housing communities. 

Courtesy of the Alameda Marina

“You have got to respect the idea that the plan has to develop in such a way that it generates enough cash to do these (infrastructure) improvements,” Curtis said. 

At a recent meeting, members of the Planning Board heard input from local residents, with some calling for the marina to stay a “working waterfront” and others lauding the possible improvements to the aging area. Now, board members would like to see an updated environmental impact report from developers about the possible changes in context of other ongoing redevelopment initiatives. 

“No report that I have ever seen has analysed the impact of the cumulative effect of all these developments,” Curtis told the East Bay Times. Curtis also suggested the need to hear more information about locations for future schools that children who will live in the proposed housing would be able to attend.

The city first received a master plan for the proposal in July 2016. The next step will be seeing a new draft of the environmental impact report.