body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,1,"Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting
Monday, May 12, 2008
1.
CONVENE:
7:06 p.m.
2.
FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Lynch.
3.
ROLL CALL:
President Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board
Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and
McNamara.
Also present were Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Cynthia Eliason,
Planning Manager; City Attorney Donna Mooney; Althea Carter, Executive Assistant.
5.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
President Cook suggested that because of the standing-room-only crowd, that Item 9-A be
heard before the rest of the agenda.
Board member Cunningham moved to hear Item 9-A before the rest of the agenda.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.
9.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9-A.
PA04-0002/R04-0001/DA04-00001 - Harbor Bay Isle Associates - Harbor
Bay Village VI (1855 North Loop Road). Consider the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the
proposed Harbor Bay Village VI residential development. The FEIR consists of
the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Response to Comments
document. The project consists of an amendment to the Alameda General Plan
Land Use Diagram from Business Park to Medium Density Residential and a
change to the General Plan Land Use Element Text and Tables for the potential
construction of approximately 104 residential units on the 12.2 acre property. A
rezoning from ""C-M-PD"" (Commercial-Manufacturing District Planned
Development) to ""R-2-PD"" (Medium Density Residential Planned Development)
will also be considered. (AT)
Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the
overhead screen. Mr. Thomas noted that staff had received significant public comment on
this project, and that the overwhelming majority of the comments have been in opposition to
the project. Staff recommended that the Planning Board hold a public hearing and adopt the
draft Resolution (Attachment E) denying the proposed General Plan and Zoning
amendments. He recommended that the Chair call for final public comments by 10:30 p.m.
so the Board would have a sufficient opportunity to comment on the proposal.
Page 1 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,2,"Mr. Tim Hoppen, applicant, President, Harbor Bay Isle Associates, summarized the
background and layout of this proposed project. He noted that their past projects had been
notable because of their quality, and believed that Harbor Bay Village VI would be no
exception and that it would create a compatible residential neighborhood tucked in between
three existing school sites and adjacent to existing homes.
Mr. Hoppen noted that several concerns and issues had been raised. For example, CLASS
stated that approval of the Village VI project would compromise the settlement agreement
with the Port of Oakland, and create an environment where jet aircraft would fly over
rooftops. He noted that their investigation had determined that would not be the case. He
added that the settlement agreement would stay in full force and effect, and after speaking
with both fixed based operators at Oakland Airport's North Field, Kaiser Air and Business
Jet Center, along with pilots, they learned that Village VI would have no effect on departure
protocols. He noted that they had asked CLASS's representatives to point out to them
exactly where in the two settlement agreements with the Port there were any provision to
make the City's approval of Village VI a violation or breach of those settlement agreements,
or permit the Port to terminate the agreements and walk away from the commitments to
work cooperatively with the City and with CLASS on noise abatement procedures. He noted
that CLASS had never done SO. He noted that they also asked CLASS for evidence that the
jet aircraft operators or pilots were poised to increase flights out of North Field out of
Alameda homes if the City approved Village VI. He noted that, too, had not been furnished.
He asked that the Planning Board request CLASS's representatives for specific evidence to
back up their claims.
Mr. Hoppen noted that Peet's stated that the approval of Village VI will impact their
operations, and added that Peet's was aware of the Village VI development prior to their
decision to come to Harbor Bay. He noted that they created complete disclosure documents
and easements to provide the necessary protections, and agreed to consider additional
protections through a development agreement so that Peet's and all businesses in the park
would not be impacted by this development. He looked forward to hearing detailed
testimony from Peet's experts on how this project will impact their business operations.
Mr. Hoppen noted that a group led by PK Consultants brought forth a variety of concerns
and questions whether the original fiscal impact report was valid. Based on that information,
the applicant had the firm of Economic Planning Systems (EPS) contact the appropriate
people and agencies in order to update their report. He noted that their findings were
highlighted in the applicant's documentation, he would like them to highlight some of the
key points that had been raised that he believed demonstrated a substantial fiscal benefit to
the City, compared to a buildout of business park uses and/or private schools.
Mr. Jason Moody, Economic Planning Systems (EPS), noted that their findings incorporated
market information as of 2008. He noted that they spoke with the Police Department and the
Fire Department to get a better understanding of the impact on their public services. He
noted that both the Police Department and the Fire Department confirmed what they stated
in 2004, that the impact on their services would be relatively neglible. They also saw no
Page 2 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,3,"difference between the impact if the use stayed under the current zoning and developed as a
business park, versus a residential development. He noted there would be no consequential
difference in the cost of services. He believed that the residential use was substantially more
valuable on a per square foot basis for the developer, and therefore, the assessed value will
be higher. He added that the property taxes to the City would also be higher. He noted that
the residential value was enhanced by having higher square footage, which would generate
an assessed value of approximately $87 million, versus $52 million of commercial. Taxed at
1%, the $35 million difference would yield an additional $350,000 in revenues. He noted
that the higher turnover for residential meant the values would continue to keep pace more
than commercial uses. He noted that the residential use would come to market sooner than
industrial use. He noted that residents would spend more in the City than employees who
come to Alameda to work.
Mr. Daniel Reedy, land use attorney for applicant, noted that he had prepared his original
remarks to go through the draft resolution in the staff report, and he now understood that has
since been changed. He had read the new response to comments on the FEIR, and he
understood there would be a hearing on the adequacy of the EIR at this hearing. He noted
that while they did not agree with every word in either the DEIR or the response to
comments, they did concur with staff's recommendation that the FEIR adequately addressed
the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and was reasonably complete. He did not
believe there was an issue of continuing to keep going on the EIR in gathering more
responses or comments. Regarding the merits of the project, they respectfully differed from
staff's analysis of the General Plan policies, and had submitted what they perceived to be the
pertinent General Plan policies. He suggested that some of the policies focused upon by Mr.
Thomas were aimed at the City commenting on the operations of the airport, as opposed to
the City's own business of land use designation. He noted that pages 4 to 6 of their summary
also addressed Policy 7.2.j: ""New or replacement residential development shall be allowed
between the 65 decibel CNEL settlement and the 70 decibel CNEL contour on Bayfarm
Island, if the property is subject to a noise easement.""
Mr. Reedy noted that the City Council acknowledged in the October 9, 2007, settlement
agreement that the Village VI proposed to ""only a minor amendment of the existing and
proposed approvals for the buildout of Harbor Bay Isle permitted under the development
agreement."" He noted that they did not see it as a major challenge to policies in the General
Plan that linked to the development agreement. He noted that draft Finding #2 missed the
General Plan's Table 8.1 (Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise
Environments), and that residential land use was classified as ""conditionally acceptable
between the 65 CNEL and 70 CNEL contours."" He noted that all that was required was a
detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements, and noise insulation features must be
incorporated into the houses. He noted that those conditions will be met in Village VI.
Mr. Reedy noted that the question had been raised whether the Village VI project will
impair the City's ability to attract new businesses to the business park. He noted that the
parcels ringed by North Loop Road were already developed, with the exception of Peet's
Expansion Parcel. He noted that it was significant that in July and August 2005, a majority
of the property owners in the business park, those with existing businesses and the
Page 3 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,4,"partnerships that owned the then-vacant parcels in the North Loop area and all the land from
North Loop westward to the Ferry Terminal, voted in writing in favor of an amendment to
the business park's CC&Rs that allow the deannexation of the project property from the
business park to allow the Village VI project to go forward, subject to certain conditions that
the project sponsor put in, such as the $500,000 designated for road improvements of
Harbor Bay Parkway, a sound wall, a buffer, and noise mitigation easements. He believed
that if those property owners were genuinely concerned about the future land use
compatibility issues, or that they would not be able to sell that land and develop them
commercially in the future, they would not have voted for the amendment to the business
park CC&Rs that allowed Village VI to go forward.
Mr. Reedy noted that the objective, factual findings would be found in the updated EPS
report. He noted that any ridership was important to the Ferry, and that the City Council
made the ongoing protection and enhancement of the ferry service an important City policy.
He believed there would be a special incentive for the homeowners because their
homeowners dues would contain a specific subsidy of the ferry. He noted that was not the
case in any other neighborhood in Harbor Bay Isle, or elsewhere on Bayfarm Island. He
believed the residents who paid that subsidy would be more inclined to use it; the service
and the shuttle service to the ferry would be marketed to them. They listed several housing
benefits in their report, such as the $1 million voluntary contribution to the City. He noted
that ABAG recently gave its allocation for market-rate housing for the City, with 843
market-rate homes. He noted that this project would help contribute to that number. He
noted that it would improve the values of existing nearby homes. He believed it would
increase opportunities for home ownership for Alameda residents, including current renters,
without having to move out of the City.
Mr. Reedy noted that under CEQA, if the Port goes forward with projects that have an
adverse impact on the City, the City would protest those projects, even if it had approved a
housing project on that site. He noted that the February 21, 2006 letter sent from the
President of the Port Commission to Mayor Johnson regarding agreement that the Port
entered into with HBIA regarding Village VI read: ""Residential is the highest and best use
of that parcel, and the process and provision set forth in the agreement would maintain and
improve the compatibility of land uses at Harbor Bay Isle with existing and future operation
and development at the Oakland Airport."" He requested that the Planning Board vote to
recommend to the City Council that the City would approve the General Plan Amendment
and the rezoning.
Board member Lynch pointed out Policy 7.2.j, and requested that Mr. Reedy be specific as it
related to the word ""shall."" He inquired whether Mr. Reedy asserted that there was no
discretionary process in which those homes need to be approved. Mr. Reedy replied that he
was not making such an assertion, and that it did not mean that they ""may"" be allowed, but
that they are allowable. Board member Lynch inquired whether Mr. Reedy understood that
the homes may be built by right; while he could follow the argument, he came to a different
conclusion because it had not been clarified. Mr. Reedy replied that the noise compatibility
issue would be handled by this policy.
Page 4 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,5,"Board member Ezzy Ashcraft observed that this would be dependent on any change in
zoning. She inquired about the letter from the Mr. Katzoff, President of the Oakland Board
of Port Commissioners (2/21/06), and was surprised when she read the portion of the letter
which stated that the FAA reached the same conclusion in determining that allowing
residential development on the proposed developmental parcels would not violate the Port's
grant assurances: ""Moreover, I personally believe that residential is the highest and best use
of the parcels, and that the process and provisions set forth in the agreement would maintain
and improve the compatibility of land uses at Harbor Bay Isle with existing and future
operation and development of the Oakland Airport."" She did not think that the personal
opinion of the president of the Port Commission would be the same as saying that the Port
had already taken a position. She noted that she was curious about the statement, and
Googled Mr. Katzoff's name. She found that he was an attorney, and that his firm and his
practice had an emphasis on representing real estate owners, developers, contractors,
architects and other design professionals. She did not believe that his personal perspective
was sufficient to bind the whole Board, and that the attachment to the letter was the Board of
Port Commissioners' Resolution 05-280, titled ""Resolution Authorizing and Approving an
Agreement with Harbor Bay Isle Associates (HBIA) to Neither Object Nor Support Harbor
Bay Isle Associates' Application for Approvals from the City of Alameda and Other
Regulatory Agencies for Residential Development in a Certain Portion of the Harbor Bay
Business Park.' She noted that the title was self-sufficient, and added that Mr. Reedy had
compiled an exhaustive document, but she did not want the Board to get beyond what the
actual document stated explicitly.
President Cook noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.
Vice President Kohlstrand moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.
Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mel Grant, owner, SFX Preferred Resorts, 1900 North Loop, spoke in opposition to this
project. He expressed concern about the negative impact and financial damage of residential
encroachment in Emeryville, and presented a video illustrating the results when
incompatible land uses are mixed. He did not believe the project should be approved. He
noted that the City had no obligation to change the zoning from commercial to residential as
requested by the applicant, but may do so if there were compelling reasons in favor of the
City and community. He opposed the additional traffic flow that would be generated on
Catalina and the adjoining roads by the additional 104 homes. He did not believe a sound
wall would stop the increased operations. He noted that a number of businesses had moved
to Alameda because of residential encroachment, particularly from Emeryville and Oakland.
He believed that further residential encroachment in Alameda would drive businesses away.
He expressed concern that having residents directly across the street would unnecessarily
increase his business' liability and risk. He believed this would create a hostile environment,
dividing the City's economic hub with its residents. He was very concerned about the good
Page 5 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,6,"work done in the business park being reversed by the presence of this development. He
noted that staff estimated that these homes would need to sell for at least $650,000 for the
City to break even on its cost to service the new development. He was not convinced the
homes would sell for that amount, and believed there may be a major financial deficit that
would not favor the City. He did not believe the development would be compatible with the
Master Plan and the zoning, would compromise the City's Master Plan for economic
growth, would drive future business away, would damage existing investors, and would
reduce employment and economy, thus having a negative impact on revenue streams to the
City. He believed this plan would only benefit the developer.
President Cook noted that Seth Kostek, Santa Clara Systems, Inc., 2060 North Loop Road,
and Clinton Abbott, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop, ceded their time to Mr.
Grant.
Ms. Susan Davis, Donsuemor, Inc., 2080 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. She noted that they relocated to this business park in February 2007 from
Emeryville, where they had been for more than 20 years. She had witnessed the intrinsic
incompatibilities that came with residential encroachment on businesses, which had been
initiated by that city to create a vibrant live-work community. She noted that she had been
asked to contribute her ideas to the city's vision, which she noted was very supportive of her
business remaining in Emeryville. She noted that in reality, those zoning choices regarding
truck routes, business operation hours, loading/unloading areas, and location of idling trucks
ultimately led to her business leaving Emeryville. She chose Alameda because of this
business park, which provided what her business and employees needed. She noted that
Alameda provided a good quality of life for her employees.
Ms. Diane Smahlik, Ettore Products Co., 2100 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. She noted that this business park was the ideal location for their company and its
employees. She believed that Alameda was a wonderful location, but did not believe that
putting housing adjacent to manufacturing was a good idea, and that there could be more
than 400 people in the neighborhood. She noted that while retail and residential may be able
to co-exist, that manufacturing and residential was not a good mix. She was very concerned
about the liability regarding the truck traffic, as well as graffiti and theft.
Mr. Brent Salomon, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition
to this project. He noted that they had originally been located in an industrial park
in
Hayward, but that the area changed in the mid-90s. They left that environment in 2003,
arriving in Alameda, which was a very good move for them. He was opposed to the
proposed proximity of the residential neighborhood to the manufacturing area. He noted that
the CC&R vote was controlled by the developer, and that the businesses did not have a
voice in that decision.
Mr. Jim Grimes, Peet's Coffee and Tea, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, spoke in opposition
to this project. He noted that Peet's moved into this business park because of what it offered,
and he noted that it was a model business park for other communities. He preferred this
business park because of its proximity to existing transportation, as well as the presence of
Page 6 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,7,"berms and other features. He noted that they had been welcomed by the City, and believed
that this area was well-planned. He was concerned about the lack of compatibility between
the industrial and residential uses, and believed that the truck noise would create complaints
by residents, although they would have moved into the area fully aware of the industrial
activities. He noted that at the time the vote of the business community was taken, in which
two-thirds of the businesses supported this plan, most of the facilities of the 12 people in the
business group had not yet been built or sold. He complimented staff on identifying the key
issues, and did not believe this was an appropriate site for a residential community. He
suggested that this site would become a good business property.
Mr. Allan Moore, land use attorney representing CLASS, Gagen & McCoy, 279 Front
Street, Danville, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that they had submitted an
extensive legal analysis dated June 1, 2007, which was included in the FEIR and the
administrative record. He noted that it responded to the request Mr. Hoppen on CLASS'
behalf. He noted that he has been a Planning Commissioner for his hometown of Walnut
Creek for 11 years. He believed that staff's response was thorough and responsive. He cited
the staff report, which unequivocally recommended that this proposed project be denied. He
stated that while staff indicated that the EIR could be certified, the significant impacts could
not be mitigated and that the proposed General Plan Amendment would not provide any
significant benefits to the community. Staff confirmed that the developer had refused to add
any affordable housing to the development, and had proposed market rate housing. He did
not believe there was any overriding benefit to the community.
Mr. Brian Mulry, attorney representing CLASS, Gagen & McCoy, 279 Front Street,
Danville, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that their arguments were outlined in
the letter submitted to the Planning Board.
Mr. Sanford Fidell, 23139 Erwin, Woodland Hills, spoke in opposition to this project. He
noted that he had studied the effects of aircraft noise on communities for over 40 years, and
had been retained by Gagen & McCoy to review the expert report appended to the
applicant's proposal. He found that the report was very narrow and legalistic in its
arguments, and its carefully stated conclusions did confirm that the aircraft noise levels at
the proposed development site were likely to increase over the years as the airport continued
to grow. He added that the most of the aircraft noise exposure could not be mitigated
outdoors at all, and that many of the indoor mitigation measures decrease with age, such as
tight-fitting doors and windows.
Mr. Red Wetherell, Vice President, CLASS, 28 Cove Road, spoke in opposition to this
project. He noted that he was an architect emeritus and a consultant in acoustics and noise
control. He described the standard noise procedures, which did not include low-frequency
rumble, which was very disturbing to residents. He concurred with staff's assessment that
this project was not appropriate for the site, and urged the Planning Board to deny it.
Ms. Barbara Tuleja, co-founder, CLASS, 22 Purcell, spoke in opposition to this project. She
noted that allowing these homes to be built would disturb the noise abatement efforts at the
airport, and noted that she had worked with the noise abatement officers for over 20 years.
Page 7 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,8,"She described the background of their efforts, and urged the Planning Board to deny this
application.
Mr. Dave Needle, CLASS, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He
noted that as a resident, he would be negatively affected by this proposed project, and urged
denial of the General Plan Amendment. He noted that the adherence to the noise abatement
procedures by the pilots would be put in jeopardy by the proposed project.
Mr. Ron Lappa spoke in opposition to this project. He believed the applicant's choice of
naming the proposed project Village VI was an attempt to convey that it was part of the
existing Harbor Bay Isle community, thereby inferring that this project was a natural
extension of the current five villages. He noted that it was not, and that Harbor Bay Isle had
built other non-Harbor Bay projects, and never attempted to dub them a village. He was very
concerned about the traffic and noise impacts, and did not believe this project was a good fit
for this site.
Ms. Janet Kirk, Islandia/CLASS, 3332 Solomon Lane, spoke in opposition to this project.
She was very concerned that the traffic from the proposed development would come into her
neighborhood.
Mr. Peter Aschwanden, 62 Vista Road, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he
had a business in the business park.
Mr. Jim Henthorne, 3163 Fiji Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. He did not believe
this would be a compatible use with the business park, and urged the Board to deny the
applicant's request. He would like Harbor Bay Associates to bring more businesses into the
park, and leave the residential uses in a more appropriate area.
Ms. Dianne Emery, 3411 Catalina Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. She read a
letter written by her neighbor Betty Crowhurst, which referred to Measure H, into the
record:
""Planning Board members, ladies and gentlemen:
It's not their fault. It we who are at fault. We continue to invite families into
Alameda, even though our schools are on the brink of bankruptcy. We are facing a
parcel tax, even school closures, according to the proponents of Measure H. It is not
good planning to generate more crowded classrooms when we can't afford the ones
we already have. Since I live on the street that is scheduled to receive all the new
traffic, I have strong objection to the plan for the so-called Village VI on that
account, also. Apparently, the traffic congestion was measured at Mecartney and
Island. The real bottleneck is at Island and Doolittle. It is very congested during
commute hours. In the event of an earthquake, we would never be able to get past
that horrendous intersection. Adding more traffic reduces still further our chances of
escaping a disaster.
Page 8 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,9,"Ms. Emery noted that she was opposed to the proposed project, and noted that eight
roadways came onto Catalina, and funneled down Island Drive or Holly. She noted that
parking would be extremely difficult, especially on the weekends.
Mr. Lee Harris, former CHBI President and former Planning Board President, spoke in
opposition to this project. He noted that the staff report and comments had addressed most
of the substantive issues that he believed should be addressed. He noted that the greatest
problems that have occurred on the Planning Board over the past 20 years involved an
intersection between residential and commercial uses. He noted that Alameda needed both
businesses and residents, but the closer proximity they had to each other, the greater the
problems were. He urged the Planning Board to follow staff's recommendation to deny this
project.
Mr. Nick Villa, Secretary, Islandia Homeowners Association, 3231 Santa Cruz Lane, spoke
in opposition to this project. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that the residential
values would increase if this project were to be built, and believed it would be a recipe for
disaster.
Ms. Elizabeth dos Remedios, President, Islandia Homeowners Association, 1002 Easter
Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. She did not believe that having eight streets
dumping onto their street would increase their home values. She believed the peaceful
nature of their neighborhood would be disturbed.
Mr. Avis Cherepy, 3164 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. He did believe
there would be enough tax revenue to support the additional demands on the schools, roads,
police, water and sewer services.
Mr. Ed Downing, 37 Clipper Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he was
a retired airline pilot, and was also Chief Pilot of the Oakland pilot base for Southwest
Airlines when he retired in 2004. He believed this project was wrong on many levels, and
that it only benefited a small group of people, the developers. As a pilot, he was accustomed
to aircraft noise, but did not particularly enjoy it over his home. He and his former company
believed that airlines and residential communities could coexist. He did not believe it was
wise to develop so many homes in close proximity to one of the busiest runways in
America, and he believed it would undermine the CLASS agreement. He noted that it took
extra effort and time on the part of both controllers and pilots to comply with noise
abatement procedures. He urged the Planning Board to deny this application.
Mr. Jason Detwiler, Islandia Homeowners Association, 3177 Phoenix Lane, spoke in
opposition to this project. He noted that the addition of even a few cars could have an
exponential effect on a gridlock situation, in terms of time spent at an intersection.
Mr. Michael Scholtes, President, Bay Isle Pointe Homeowners Association, 87 Sable Pointe,
spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that as a pilot, he flew out of North Field, and
added that the airport was anxious to increase the light jet and turboprop operations out of
North Field. He did not want this project to compromise the agreement between the City and
Page 9 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,10,"Oakland Airport pilots. He was very concerned about the increased traffic generated by 104
homes, approximately 300-400 additional cars. He urged the Planning Board to deny the
application.
Ms. Betty Anderson, Islandia/CLASS, 3204 Fiji Lane, was opposed to this project, and
declined to speak.
Mr. Bill Smith noted that the community ran on the investments and taxes of the residents
and business owners. He did not believe this project would increase the nearby house
values. He suggested a park and ride lot.
Mr. Michael Robles Wong, President, Board for Community of Harbor Bay Isle,
representing 20 homeowner associations on Bayfarm Island, with 3,000 houses and 10,000
residents. He spoke in opposition to this project. He was very concerned about the potential
increase in noise and air pollution. He noted that the EIR did not address the impact on
children. He noted that Earhart, Bayfarm and Lincoln Middle Schools were already at
capacity, and that the children of the potential new homeowners would have to be driven to
and from school every day. He did not believe this development would raise the value of the
homes.
Ms. Reyla Graber spoke in opposition to this project, and believed it was a terrible idea that
only benefited the developer. She noted that a General Plan Amendment must promote the
general welfare, have an overriding concern in the general public interest, must be equitable
and have an overriding consideration that the benefits outweighed the negatives. She
believed the negative impacts far outweighed any possible benefits. She was concerned that
the existing businesses would be lost.
Mr. Bob Berges spoke in opposition to this project.
Ms. Pat Gannon, 1019 Tobago, spoke in opposition to this project, and agreed with the
previous comments that had been made about the project. She believed the project would do
a disservice to the Alameda residents.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham why the Board was not voting up
or down on the EIR, Ms. Mooney replied that the original resolution was changed because
there was discussion of the EIR. If the Planning Board were to deny this project, it would be
best to keep the project and EIR together from a procedural aspect, rather than approving the
EIR without a project. She noted that City Council was the only body with the ability to
make the statement of overriding considerations on the EIR.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether this was identified in the
Housing Element as a potential housing site, Mr. Thomas replied that it would have no
impact on the Housing Element, and that it was not identified as a housing site.
Page 10 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,11,"In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the inclusionary housing
ordinance would come into effect, Mr. Thomas replied that normally it would, but not in this
case.
Board member McNamara noted that the staff report did not reference Island going all the
way through, as well as the eight streets feeding onto Catalina. Mr. Thomas replied that the
application before the Board was a General Plan Amendment to change the zoning from
business to residential, which was analyzed in the EIR. He described the procedures in
determining the street layout and flow.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether he cared to move forward on
this application, based on what the public and Planning Board had said during the meeting,
Mr. Hoppen replied that he intended to go forward with the application.
In response to a question, Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant submitted a fiscal impact
study prepared by EPS in 2004. PK Consultants looked at the report, and raised a number of
questions, particularly regarding the age of the report. The applicants agreed that the report
should be updated. The fundamental difference of opinion between staff and the EPS
analysis was the idea that there was no difference in the cost of residential and business use
to the General Fund. It was agreed that the residential use would generate higher land
values, but they disagreed regarding the cost to service the residential use versus the
business use. The report took the position that they were basically the same.
In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether that assertion was
substantiated, Mr. Thomas replied that EPS identified several sources of information,
including the Police and Fire Departments. Staff was concerned about the calls that they
would receive for Code Enforcement, complaints about businesses, noise and traffic that did
not go to the Police Department. He believed this site would generate a lot of calls, and
believed that the time and economic resources expended would be significant.
President Cook noted that there would be the cost associated with the loss of opportunity
from businesses that may not come to Alameda because it was no longer a desirable
environment in which to do business.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that while the City certainly needed revenues,
residences and businesses, this was not an either/or proposition; she believed there should be
diversification in the City. She noted that the commercial/light industrial/manufacturing use
in the City was very valuable. She disclosed that she met with some business owners from
the North Loop Business Association who had spoken during the public hearing the
previous week. She noted that this business park had grown and progressed, which was
good for Alameda. She noted that Harbor Bay Isle had held this parcel for 20 years, and had
trouble selling it. She noted that there were some business parks where the businesses
owned their own spaces, and that it was important to support both business and residential
uses in the area. She was concerned about the noise issue, and that the mitigation measures
included ""inoperable or closed windows, as well as mechanical ventilation systems that will
meet the Uniform Building Code requirements."" She believed that was a tortured analysis,
Page 11 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,12,"and did not believe it would be workable in the event of a power outage. She believed a
continually operating mechanical ventilation system would be a drain on energy resources,
and that non-operating windows would be a problem in a power outage.
President Cook completely agreed with the staff report. She noted that she had visited
preschools in that area at one time, but did not believe it would be a healthy place for
housing, given the jet traffic and noise. She believed this area should remain a
commercial/industrial use. She noted that this would be a good case study on the necessity
of appropriate zoning.
Board member Cunningham concurred with the staff report, and believed that in this case, if
you build it, they will not come. He agreed that this demonstrated the importance of zoning,
as well as controlling dysfunctional uses coming together.
Vice President Kohlstrand thanked staff and the members of the public, as well as the
applicant, who put a great deal of effort into their presentation. She appreciated the
respectful manner in which the hearing was conducted. She believed that there was
overwhelming opposition in the community, and did not hear one resident speak in support
of this item. She believed that it would invite more problems if a residential neighborhood
were to be established near the runway. She did not believe the monetary benefits were an
issue at all, because the uses were incompatible and that there would be noise complaints,
regardless of any signed waiver. She could not support this request for a zoning change.
Board member Lynch concurred with the staff report. He believed this was very poor land
use planning, and that it was the applicant's right to come forward with such a request. He
would not support this application.
Board member McNamara concurred with the recommendation of the staff report. She
believed the tax revenue benefit would disappear after Year 1, and it would be more
beneficial to allow the business park to be successful in recruiting and developing the land
as it was initially designed. She could not support this application.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that relocating a business was time-consuming and
expensive, and that while there may be a time to make amendments, she did not believe this
was that time.
Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to deny
the proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning map amendment.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.
Noes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.
Mr. Thomas noted that this decision may be appealed within 10 days.
President Cook called for a five-minute recess.
Page 12 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,13,"4.
MINUTES:
a.
Minutes for the meeting of March 24, 2008.
President Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, ""She was
concerned that the quality of the back yard for the ground floor unit would be restricted
compromised because of private decks.""
Board Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2008, as
amended.
Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:
0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.
b.
Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
c.
Minutes for the meeting of April 28, 2008 (pending).
These minutes will be considered at a later meeting.
6.
PRESENTATIONS:
a.
Staff Communications - Future Agendas
Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items. He noted that the May 27, 2008,
meeting held on Tuesday because of the holiday, would be held at the Mastick Senior
Center.
Mr. Thomas noted that the June 9, 2008, meeting would be held in the Library.
b.
Zoning Administrator Report - Meeting of April 15, 2008.
Mr. Thomas noted that the May 6 Zoning Administrator meeting had been canceled.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8-A. Appointment of Planning Board Member to the Bicycle Plan Task Force.
No action was taken.
10.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Page 13 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,14,"a.
Transmittal of Draft Pedestrian Plan
Mr. Thomas noted that the plan would be agendized for discussion at the next meeting.
11.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Cunningham noted that the Climate Protection Task Plan won an award.
Ms. Eliason noted that the award of merit from the Northern California Chapter of the
American Planning Association was presented for Community Green Building.
Board member Cunningham noted that award was a direct result of staff's hard work.
President Cook noted that she had received several calls from Ms. Grabber regarding the
noticing requirements. The Board had discussed the need for noticing greater than 300
feet for the big projects with wide-ranging impact on people.
Mr. Thomas noted that was discussed with City Council when the Esplanade project
came forward. The City has committed to notify a larger area for the Harbor
Bay/Business Park projects, as well as to ensure that every homeowners association
president was noticed of every project. He invited ideas for improving noticing.
Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested keeping an up-to-date list of neighborhood,
business and other civic organizations that have been interested in planning issues.
Board member Lynch noted that this issue has come forward from time to time, and that
in San Francisco, there were agencies that assist with notifying the public, including
website and email notification. He noted that some cities are adopting ordinances that
expand the notification radius.
President Cook noted that Ms. Graber's concerns included the radius and the timing issue,
and that there was often not enough time to get the community apprised of the issue.
Mr. Thomas noted that the notices went out 20 days before the meeting, as adopted by
City Council.
Ms. Eliason noted that AP&T no longer wants Planning staff to post notices on their new
poles, and that staff now uses A-frame signs.
Mr. Thomas noted that if a resident wished to be on the email list, they would also
receive the staff reports.
12.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 14 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf
PlanningBoard,2008-05-12,15,"Andrew Thomas, Secretary
City Planning Board
This meeting was audio and video taped.
Page 15 of 15",PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf