{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, May 12, 2008\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:06 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Lynch.\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cook, Vice President Kohlstrand, Board\nMembers Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch and\nMcNamara.\nAlso present were Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, Cynthia Eliason,\nPlanning Manager; City Attorney Donna Mooney; Althea Carter, Executive Assistant.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nPresident Cook suggested that because of the standing-room-only crowd, that Item 9-A be\nheard before the rest of the agenda.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to hear Item 9-A before the rest of the agenda.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A.\nPA04-0002/R04-0001/DA04-00001 - Harbor Bay Isle Associates - Harbor\nBay Village VI (1855 North Loop Road). Consider the Final Environmental\nImpact Report (FEIR), the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the\nproposed Harbor Bay Village VI residential development. The FEIR consists of\nthe Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Response to Comments\ndocument. The project consists of an amendment to the Alameda General Plan\nLand Use Diagram from Business Park to Medium Density Residential and a\nchange to the General Plan Land Use Element Text and Tables for the potential\nconstruction of approximately 104 residential units on the 12.2 acre property. A\nrezoning from \"C-M-PD\" (Commercial-Manufacturing District Planned\nDevelopment) to \"R-2-PD\" (Medium Density Residential Planned Development)\nwill also be considered. (AT)\nMr. Thomas presented the staff report, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the\noverhead screen. Mr. Thomas noted that staff had received significant public comment on\nthis project, and that the overwhelming majority of the comments have been in opposition to\nthe project. Staff recommended that the Planning Board hold a public hearing and adopt the\ndraft Resolution (Attachment E) denying the proposed General Plan and Zoning\namendments. He recommended that the Chair call for final public comments by 10:30 p.m.\nso the Board would have a sufficient opportunity to comment on the proposal.\nPage 1 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Tim Hoppen, applicant, President, Harbor Bay Isle Associates, summarized the\nbackground and layout of this proposed project. He noted that their past projects had been\nnotable because of their quality, and believed that Harbor Bay Village VI would be no\nexception and that it would create a compatible residential neighborhood tucked in between\nthree existing school sites and adjacent to existing homes.\nMr. Hoppen noted that several concerns and issues had been raised. For example, CLASS\nstated that approval of the Village VI project would compromise the settlement agreement\nwith the Port of Oakland, and create an environment where jet aircraft would fly over\nrooftops. He noted that their investigation had determined that would not be the case. He\nadded that the settlement agreement would stay in full force and effect, and after speaking\nwith both fixed based operators at Oakland Airport's North Field, Kaiser Air and Business\nJet Center, along with pilots, they learned that Village VI would have no effect on departure\nprotocols. He noted that they had asked CLASS's representatives to point out to them\nexactly where in the two settlement agreements with the Port there were any provision to\nmake the City's approval of Village VI a violation or breach of those settlement agreements,\nor permit the Port to terminate the agreements and walk away from the commitments to\nwork cooperatively with the City and with CLASS on noise abatement procedures. He noted\nthat CLASS had never done SO. He noted that they also asked CLASS for evidence that the\njet aircraft operators or pilots were poised to increase flights out of North Field out of\nAlameda homes if the City approved Village VI. He noted that, too, had not been furnished.\nHe asked that the Planning Board request CLASS's representatives for specific evidence to\nback up their claims.\nMr. Hoppen noted that Peet's stated that the approval of Village VI will impact their\noperations, and added that Peet's was aware of the Village VI development prior to their\ndecision to come to Harbor Bay. He noted that they created complete disclosure documents\nand easements to provide the necessary protections, and agreed to consider additional\nprotections through a development agreement so that Peet's and all businesses in the park\nwould not be impacted by this development. He looked forward to hearing detailed\ntestimony from Peet's experts on how this project will impact their business operations.\nMr. Hoppen noted that a group led by PK Consultants brought forth a variety of concerns\nand questions whether the original fiscal impact report was valid. Based on that information,\nthe applicant had the firm of Economic Planning Systems (EPS) contact the appropriate\npeople and agencies in order to update their report. He noted that their findings were\nhighlighted in the applicant's documentation, he would like them to highlight some of the\nkey points that had been raised that he believed demonstrated a substantial fiscal benefit to\nthe City, compared to a buildout of business park uses and/or private schools.\nMr. Jason Moody, Economic Planning Systems (EPS), noted that their findings incorporated\nmarket information as of 2008. He noted that they spoke with the Police Department and the\nFire Department to get a better understanding of the impact on their public services. He\nnoted that both the Police Department and the Fire Department confirmed what they stated\nin 2004, that the impact on their services would be relatively neglible. They also saw no\nPage 2 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 3, "text": "difference between the impact if the use stayed under the current zoning and developed as a\nbusiness park, versus a residential development. He noted there would be no consequential\ndifference in the cost of services. He believed that the residential use was substantially more\nvaluable on a per square foot basis for the developer, and therefore, the assessed value will\nbe higher. He added that the property taxes to the City would also be higher. He noted that\nthe residential value was enhanced by having higher square footage, which would generate\nan assessed value of approximately $87 million, versus $52 million of commercial. Taxed at\n1%, the $35 million difference would yield an additional $350,000 in revenues. He noted\nthat the higher turnover for residential meant the values would continue to keep pace more\nthan commercial uses. He noted that the residential use would come to market sooner than\nindustrial use. He noted that residents would spend more in the City than employees who\ncome to Alameda to work.\nMr. Daniel Reedy, land use attorney for applicant, noted that he had prepared his original\nremarks to go through the draft resolution in the staff report, and he now understood that has\nsince been changed. He had read the new response to comments on the FEIR, and he\nunderstood there would be a hearing on the adequacy of the EIR at this hearing. He noted\nthat while they did not agree with every word in either the DEIR or the response to\ncomments, they did concur with staff's recommendation that the FEIR adequately addressed\nthe environmental impacts of the proposed project, and was reasonably complete. He did not\nbelieve there was an issue of continuing to keep going on the EIR in gathering more\nresponses or comments. Regarding the merits of the project, they respectfully differed from\nstaff's analysis of the General Plan policies, and had submitted what they perceived to be the\npertinent General Plan policies. He suggested that some of the policies focused upon by Mr.\nThomas were aimed at the City commenting on the operations of the airport, as opposed to\nthe City's own business of land use designation. He noted that pages 4 to 6 of their summary\nalso addressed Policy 7.2.j: \"New or replacement residential development shall be allowed\nbetween the 65 decibel CNEL settlement and the 70 decibel CNEL contour on Bayfarm\nIsland, if the property is subject to a noise easement.\"\nMr. Reedy noted that the City Council acknowledged in the October 9, 2007, settlement\nagreement that the Village VI proposed to \"only a minor amendment of the existing and\nproposed approvals for the buildout of Harbor Bay Isle permitted under the development\nagreement.\" He noted that they did not see it as a major challenge to policies in the General\nPlan that linked to the development agreement. He noted that draft Finding #2 missed the\nGeneral Plan's Table 8.1 (Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise\nEnvironments), and that residential land use was classified as \"conditionally acceptable\nbetween the 65 CNEL and 70 CNEL contours.\" He noted that all that was required was a\ndetailed analysis of noise reduction requirements, and noise insulation features must be\nincorporated into the houses. He noted that those conditions will be met in Village VI.\nMr. Reedy noted that the question had been raised whether the Village VI project will\nimpair the City's ability to attract new businesses to the business park. He noted that the\nparcels ringed by North Loop Road were already developed, with the exception of Peet's\nExpansion Parcel. He noted that it was significant that in July and August 2005, a majority\nof the property owners in the business park, those with existing businesses and the\nPage 3 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 4, "text": "partnerships that owned the then-vacant parcels in the North Loop area and all the land from\nNorth Loop westward to the Ferry Terminal, voted in writing in favor of an amendment to\nthe business park's CC&Rs that allow the deannexation of the project property from the\nbusiness park to allow the Village VI project to go forward, subject to certain conditions that\nthe project sponsor put in, such as the $500,000 designated for road improvements of\nHarbor Bay Parkway, a sound wall, a buffer, and noise mitigation easements. He believed\nthat if those property owners were genuinely concerned about the future land use\ncompatibility issues, or that they would not be able to sell that land and develop them\ncommercially in the future, they would not have voted for the amendment to the business\npark CC&Rs that allowed Village VI to go forward.\nMr. Reedy noted that the objective, factual findings would be found in the updated EPS\nreport. He noted that any ridership was important to the Ferry, and that the City Council\nmade the ongoing protection and enhancement of the ferry service an important City policy.\nHe believed there would be a special incentive for the homeowners because their\nhomeowners dues would contain a specific subsidy of the ferry. He noted that was not the\ncase in any other neighborhood in Harbor Bay Isle, or elsewhere on Bayfarm Island. He\nbelieved the residents who paid that subsidy would be more inclined to use it; the service\nand the shuttle service to the ferry would be marketed to them. They listed several housing\nbenefits in their report, such as the $1 million voluntary contribution to the City. He noted\nthat ABAG recently gave its allocation for market-rate housing for the City, with 843\nmarket-rate homes. He noted that this project would help contribute to that number. He\nnoted that it would improve the values of existing nearby homes. He believed it would\nincrease opportunities for home ownership for Alameda residents, including current renters,\nwithout having to move out of the City.\nMr. Reedy noted that under CEQA, if the Port goes forward with projects that have an\nadverse impact on the City, the City would protest those projects, even if it had approved a\nhousing project on that site. He noted that the February 21, 2006 letter sent from the\nPresident of the Port Commission to Mayor Johnson regarding agreement that the Port\nentered into with HBIA regarding Village VI read: \"Residential is the highest and best use\nof that parcel, and the process and provision set forth in the agreement would maintain and\nimprove the compatibility of land uses at Harbor Bay Isle with existing and future operation\nand development at the Oakland Airport.\" He requested that the Planning Board vote to\nrecommend to the City Council that the City would approve the General Plan Amendment\nand the rezoning.\nBoard member Lynch pointed out Policy 7.2.j, and requested that Mr. Reedy be specific as it\nrelated to the word \"shall.\" He inquired whether Mr. Reedy asserted that there was no\ndiscretionary process in which those homes need to be approved. Mr. Reedy replied that he\nwas not making such an assertion, and that it did not mean that they \"may\" be allowed, but\nthat they are allowable. Board member Lynch inquired whether Mr. Reedy understood that\nthe homes may be built by right; while he could follow the argument, he came to a different\nconclusion because it had not been clarified. Mr. Reedy replied that the noise compatibility\nissue would be handled by this policy.\nPage 4 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 5, "text": "Board member Ezzy Ashcraft observed that this would be dependent on any change in\nzoning. She inquired about the letter from the Mr. Katzoff, President of the Oakland Board\nof Port Commissioners (2/21/06), and was surprised when she read the portion of the letter\nwhich stated that the FAA reached the same conclusion in determining that allowing\nresidential development on the proposed developmental parcels would not violate the Port's\ngrant assurances: \"Moreover, I personally believe that residential is the highest and best use\nof the parcels, and that the process and provisions set forth in the agreement would maintain\nand improve the compatibility of land uses at Harbor Bay Isle with existing and future\noperation and development of the Oakland Airport.\" She did not think that the personal\nopinion of the president of the Port Commission would be the same as saying that the Port\nhad already taken a position. She noted that she was curious about the statement, and\nGoogled Mr. Katzoff's name. She found that he was an attorney, and that his firm and his\npractice had an emphasis on representing real estate owners, developers, contractors,\narchitects and other design professionals. She did not believe that his personal perspective\nwas sufficient to bind the whole Board, and that the attachment to the letter was the Board of\nPort Commissioners' Resolution 05-280, titled \"Resolution Authorizing and Approving an\nAgreement with Harbor Bay Isle Associates (HBIA) to Neither Object Nor Support Harbor\nBay Isle Associates' Application for Approvals from the City of Alameda and Other\nRegulatory Agencies for Residential Development in a Certain Portion of the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park.' She noted that the title was self-sufficient, and added that Mr. Reedy had\ncompiled an exhaustive document, but she did not want the Board to get beyond what the\nactual document stated explicitly.\nPresident Cook noted that more than five speaker slips had been received.\nVice President Kohlstrand moved to limit the speakers' time to three minutes.\nBoard member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Mel Grant, owner, SFX Preferred Resorts, 1900 North Loop, spoke in opposition to this\nproject. He expressed concern about the negative impact and financial damage of residential\nencroachment in Emeryville, and presented a video illustrating the results when\nincompatible land uses are mixed. He did not believe the project should be approved. He\nnoted that the City had no obligation to change the zoning from commercial to residential as\nrequested by the applicant, but may do so if there were compelling reasons in favor of the\nCity and community. He opposed the additional traffic flow that would be generated on\nCatalina and the adjoining roads by the additional 104 homes. He did not believe a sound\nwall would stop the increased operations. He noted that a number of businesses had moved\nto Alameda because of residential encroachment, particularly from Emeryville and Oakland.\nHe believed that further residential encroachment in Alameda would drive businesses away.\nHe expressed concern that having residents directly across the street would unnecessarily\nincrease his business' liability and risk. He believed this would create a hostile environment,\ndividing the City's economic hub with its residents. He was very concerned about the good\nPage 5 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 6, "text": "work done in the business park being reversed by the presence of this development. He\nnoted that staff estimated that these homes would need to sell for at least $650,000 for the\nCity to break even on its cost to service the new development. He was not convinced the\nhomes would sell for that amount, and believed there may be a major financial deficit that\nwould not favor the City. He did not believe the development would be compatible with the\nMaster Plan and the zoning, would compromise the City's Master Plan for economic\ngrowth, would drive future business away, would damage existing investors, and would\nreduce employment and economy, thus having a negative impact on revenue streams to the\nCity. He believed this plan would only benefit the developer.\nPresident Cook noted that Seth Kostek, Santa Clara Systems, Inc., 2060 North Loop Road,\nand Clinton Abbott, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop, ceded their time to Mr.\nGrant.\nMs. Susan Davis, Donsuemor, Inc., 2080 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this\nproject. She noted that they relocated to this business park in February 2007 from\nEmeryville, where they had been for more than 20 years. She had witnessed the intrinsic\nincompatibilities that came with residential encroachment on businesses, which had been\ninitiated by that city to create a vibrant live-work community. She noted that she had been\nasked to contribute her ideas to the city's vision, which she noted was very supportive of her\nbusiness remaining in Emeryville. She noted that in reality, those zoning choices regarding\ntruck routes, business operation hours, loading/unloading areas, and location of idling trucks\nultimately led to her business leaving Emeryville. She chose Alameda because of this\nbusiness park, which provided what her business and employees needed. She noted that\nAlameda provided a good quality of life for her employees.\nMs. Diane Smahlik, Ettore Products Co., 2100 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this\nproject. She noted that this business park was the ideal location for their company and its\nemployees. She believed that Alameda was a wonderful location, but did not believe that\nputting housing adjacent to manufacturing was a good idea, and that there could be more\nthan 400 people in the neighborhood. She noted that while retail and residential may be able\nto co-exist, that manufacturing and residential was not a good mix. She was very concerned\nabout the liability regarding the truck traffic, as well as graffiti and theft.\nMr. Brent Salomon, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition\nto this project. He noted that they had originally been located in an industrial park\nin\nHayward, but that the area changed in the mid-90s. They left that environment in 2003,\narriving in Alameda, which was a very good move for them. He was opposed to the\nproposed proximity of the residential neighborhood to the manufacturing area. He noted that\nthe CC&R vote was controlled by the developer, and that the businesses did not have a\nvoice in that decision.\nMr. Jim Grimes, Peet's Coffee and Tea, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, spoke in opposition\nto this project. He noted that Peet's moved into this business park because of what it offered,\nand he noted that it was a model business park for other communities. He preferred this\nbusiness park because of its proximity to existing transportation, as well as the presence of\nPage 6 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 7, "text": "berms and other features. He noted that they had been welcomed by the City, and believed\nthat this area was well-planned. He was concerned about the lack of compatibility between\nthe industrial and residential uses, and believed that the truck noise would create complaints\nby residents, although they would have moved into the area fully aware of the industrial\nactivities. He noted that at the time the vote of the business community was taken, in which\ntwo-thirds of the businesses supported this plan, most of the facilities of the 12 people in the\nbusiness group had not yet been built or sold. He complimented staff on identifying the key\nissues, and did not believe this was an appropriate site for a residential community. He\nsuggested that this site would become a good business property.\nMr. Allan Moore, land use attorney representing CLASS, Gagen & McCoy, 279 Front\nStreet, Danville, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that they had submitted an\nextensive legal analysis dated June 1, 2007, which was included in the FEIR and the\nadministrative record. He noted that it responded to the request Mr. Hoppen on CLASS'\nbehalf. He noted that he has been a Planning Commissioner for his hometown of Walnut\nCreek for 11 years. He believed that staff's response was thorough and responsive. He cited\nthe staff report, which unequivocally recommended that this proposed project be denied. He\nstated that while staff indicated that the EIR could be certified, the significant impacts could\nnot be mitigated and that the proposed General Plan Amendment would not provide any\nsignificant benefits to the community. Staff confirmed that the developer had refused to add\nany affordable housing to the development, and had proposed market rate housing. He did\nnot believe there was any overriding benefit to the community.\nMr. Brian Mulry, attorney representing CLASS, Gagen & McCoy, 279 Front Street,\nDanville, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that their arguments were outlined in\nthe letter submitted to the Planning Board.\nMr. Sanford Fidell, 23139 Erwin, Woodland Hills, spoke in opposition to this project. He\nnoted that he had studied the effects of aircraft noise on communities for over 40 years, and\nhad been retained by Gagen & McCoy to review the expert report appended to the\napplicant's proposal. He found that the report was very narrow and legalistic in its\narguments, and its carefully stated conclusions did confirm that the aircraft noise levels at\nthe proposed development site were likely to increase over the years as the airport continued\nto grow. He added that the most of the aircraft noise exposure could not be mitigated\noutdoors at all, and that many of the indoor mitigation measures decrease with age, such as\ntight-fitting doors and windows.\nMr. Red Wetherell, Vice President, CLASS, 28 Cove Road, spoke in opposition to this\nproject. He noted that he was an architect emeritus and a consultant in acoustics and noise\ncontrol. He described the standard noise procedures, which did not include low-frequency\nrumble, which was very disturbing to residents. He concurred with staff's assessment that\nthis project was not appropriate for the site, and urged the Planning Board to deny it.\nMs. Barbara Tuleja, co-founder, CLASS, 22 Purcell, spoke in opposition to this project. She\nnoted that allowing these homes to be built would disturb the noise abatement efforts at the\nairport, and noted that she had worked with the noise abatement officers for over 20 years.\nPage 7 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 8, "text": "She described the background of their efforts, and urged the Planning Board to deny this\napplication.\nMr. Dave Needle, CLASS, 2981 Northwood Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He\nnoted that as a resident, he would be negatively affected by this proposed project, and urged\ndenial of the General Plan Amendment. He noted that the adherence to the noise abatement\nprocedures by the pilots would be put in jeopardy by the proposed project.\nMr. Ron Lappa spoke in opposition to this project. He believed the applicant's choice of\nnaming the proposed project Village VI was an attempt to convey that it was part of the\nexisting Harbor Bay Isle community, thereby inferring that this project was a natural\nextension of the current five villages. He noted that it was not, and that Harbor Bay Isle had\nbuilt other non-Harbor Bay projects, and never attempted to dub them a village. He was very\nconcerned about the traffic and noise impacts, and did not believe this project was a good fit\nfor this site.\nMs. Janet Kirk, Islandia/CLASS, 3332 Solomon Lane, spoke in opposition to this project.\nShe was very concerned that the traffic from the proposed development would come into her\nneighborhood.\nMr. Peter Aschwanden, 62 Vista Road, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that he\nhad a business in the business park.\nMr. Jim Henthorne, 3163 Fiji Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. He did not believe\nthis would be a compatible use with the business park, and urged the Board to deny the\napplicant's request. He would like Harbor Bay Associates to bring more businesses into the\npark, and leave the residential uses in a more appropriate area.\nMs. Dianne Emery, 3411 Catalina Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project. She read a\nletter written by her neighbor Betty Crowhurst, which referred to Measure H, into the\nrecord:\n\"Planning Board members, ladies and gentlemen:\nIt's not their fault. It we who are at fault. We continue to invite families into\nAlameda, even though our schools are on the brink of bankruptcy. We are facing a\nparcel tax, even school closures, according to the proponents of Measure H. It is not\ngood planning to generate more crowded classrooms when we can't afford the ones\nwe already have. Since I live on the street that is scheduled to receive all the new\ntraffic, I have strong objection to the plan for the so-called Village VI on that\naccount, also. Apparently, the traffic congestion was measured at Mecartney and\nIsland. The real bottleneck is at Island and Doolittle. It is very congested during\ncommute hours. In the event of an earthquake, we would never be able to get past\nthat horrendous intersection. Adding more traffic reduces still further our chances of\nescaping a disaster.\nPage 8 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Emery noted that she was opposed to the proposed project, and noted that eight\nroadways came onto Catalina, and funneled down Island Drive or Holly. She noted that\nparking would be extremely difficult, especially on the weekends.\nMr. Lee Harris, former CHBI President and former Planning Board President, spoke in\nopposition to this project. He noted that the staff report and comments had addressed most\nof the substantive issues that he believed should be addressed. He noted that the greatest\nproblems that have occurred on the Planning Board over the past 20 years involved an\nintersection between residential and commercial uses. He noted that Alameda needed both\nbusinesses and residents, but the closer proximity they had to each other, the greater the\nproblems were. He urged the Planning Board to follow staff's recommendation to deny this\nproject.\nMr. Nick Villa, Secretary, Islandia Homeowners Association, 3231 Santa Cruz Lane, spoke\nin opposition to this project. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that the residential\nvalues would increase if this project were to be built, and believed it would be a recipe for\ndisaster.\nMs. Elizabeth dos Remedios, President, Islandia Homeowners Association, 1002 Easter\nLane, spoke in opposition to this project. She did not believe that having eight streets\ndumping onto their street would increase their home values. She believed the peaceful\nnature of their neighborhood would be disturbed.\nMr. Avis Cherepy, 3164 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to this project. He did believe\nthere would be enough tax revenue to support the additional demands on the schools, roads,\npolice, water and sewer services.\nMr. Ed Downing, 37 Clipper Drive, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that he was\na retired airline pilot, and was also Chief Pilot of the Oakland pilot base for Southwest\nAirlines when he retired in 2004. He believed this project was wrong on many levels, and\nthat it only benefited a small group of people, the developers. As a pilot, he was accustomed\nto aircraft noise, but did not particularly enjoy it over his home. He and his former company\nbelieved that airlines and residential communities could coexist. He did not believe it was\nwise to develop so many homes in close proximity to one of the busiest runways in\nAmerica, and he believed it would undermine the CLASS agreement. He noted that it took\nextra effort and time on the part of both controllers and pilots to comply with noise\nabatement procedures. He urged the Planning Board to deny this application.\nMr. Jason Detwiler, Islandia Homeowners Association, 3177 Phoenix Lane, spoke in\nopposition to this project. He noted that the addition of even a few cars could have an\nexponential effect on a gridlock situation, in terms of time spent at an intersection.\nMr. Michael Scholtes, President, Bay Isle Pointe Homeowners Association, 87 Sable Pointe,\nspoke in opposition to this project. He noted that as a pilot, he flew out of North Field, and\nadded that the airport was anxious to increase the light jet and turboprop operations out of\nNorth Field. He did not want this project to compromise the agreement between the City and\nPage 9 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 10, "text": "Oakland Airport pilots. He was very concerned about the increased traffic generated by 104\nhomes, approximately 300-400 additional cars. He urged the Planning Board to deny the\napplication.\nMs. Betty Anderson, Islandia/CLASS, 3204 Fiji Lane, was opposed to this project, and\ndeclined to speak.\nMr. Bill Smith noted that the community ran on the investments and taxes of the residents\nand business owners. He did not believe this project would increase the nearby house\nvalues. He suggested a park and ride lot.\nMr. Michael Robles Wong, President, Board for Community of Harbor Bay Isle,\nrepresenting 20 homeowner associations on Bayfarm Island, with 3,000 houses and 10,000\nresidents. He spoke in opposition to this project. He was very concerned about the potential\nincrease in noise and air pollution. He noted that the EIR did not address the impact on\nchildren. He noted that Earhart, Bayfarm and Lincoln Middle Schools were already at\ncapacity, and that the children of the potential new homeowners would have to be driven to\nand from school every day. He did not believe this development would raise the value of the\nhomes.\nMs. Reyla Graber spoke in opposition to this project, and believed it was a terrible idea that\nonly benefited the developer. She noted that a General Plan Amendment must promote the\ngeneral welfare, have an overriding concern in the general public interest, must be equitable\nand have an overriding consideration that the benefits outweighed the negatives. She\nbelieved the negative impacts far outweighed any possible benefits. She was concerned that\nthe existing businesses would be lost.\nMr. Bob Berges spoke in opposition to this project.\nMs. Pat Gannon, 1019 Tobago, spoke in opposition to this project, and agreed with the\nprevious comments that had been made about the project. She believed the project would do\na disservice to the Alameda residents.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham why the Board was not voting up\nor down on the EIR, Ms. Mooney replied that the original resolution was changed because\nthere was discussion of the EIR. If the Planning Board were to deny this project, it would be\nbest to keep the project and EIR together from a procedural aspect, rather than approving the\nEIR without a project. She noted that City Council was the only body with the ability to\nmake the statement of overriding considerations on the EIR.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether this was identified in the\nHousing Element as a potential housing site, Mr. Thomas replied that it would have no\nimpact on the Housing Element, and that it was not identified as a housing site.\nPage 10 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 11, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the inclusionary housing\nordinance would come into effect, Mr. Thomas replied that normally it would, but not in this\ncase.\nBoard member McNamara noted that the staff report did not reference Island going all the\nway through, as well as the eight streets feeding onto Catalina. Mr. Thomas replied that the\napplication before the Board was a General Plan Amendment to change the zoning from\nbusiness to residential, which was analyzed in the EIR. He described the procedures in\ndetermining the street layout and flow.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether he cared to move forward on\nthis application, based on what the public and Planning Board had said during the meeting,\nMr. Hoppen replied that he intended to go forward with the application.\nIn response to a question, Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant submitted a fiscal impact\nstudy prepared by EPS in 2004. PK Consultants looked at the report, and raised a number of\nquestions, particularly regarding the age of the report. The applicants agreed that the report\nshould be updated. The fundamental difference of opinion between staff and the EPS\nanalysis was the idea that there was no difference in the cost of residential and business use\nto the General Fund. It was agreed that the residential use would generate higher land\nvalues, but they disagreed regarding the cost to service the residential use versus the\nbusiness use. The report took the position that they were basically the same.\nIn response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether that assertion was\nsubstantiated, Mr. Thomas replied that EPS identified several sources of information,\nincluding the Police and Fire Departments. Staff was concerned about the calls that they\nwould receive for Code Enforcement, complaints about businesses, noise and traffic that did\nnot go to the Police Department. He believed this site would generate a lot of calls, and\nbelieved that the time and economic resources expended would be significant.\nPresident Cook noted that there would be the cost associated with the loss of opportunity\nfrom businesses that may not come to Alameda because it was no longer a desirable\nenvironment in which to do business.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that while the City certainly needed revenues,\nresidences and businesses, this was not an either/or proposition; she believed there should be\ndiversification in the City. She noted that the commercial/light industrial/manufacturing use\nin the City was very valuable. She disclosed that she met with some business owners from\nthe North Loop Business Association who had spoken during the public hearing the\nprevious week. She noted that this business park had grown and progressed, which was\ngood for Alameda. She noted that Harbor Bay Isle had held this parcel for 20 years, and had\ntrouble selling it. She noted that there were some business parks where the businesses\nowned their own spaces, and that it was important to support both business and residential\nuses in the area. She was concerned about the noise issue, and that the mitigation measures\nincluded \"inoperable or closed windows, as well as mechanical ventilation systems that will\nmeet the Uniform Building Code requirements.\" She believed that was a tortured analysis,\nPage 11 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 12, "text": "and did not believe it would be workable in the event of a power outage. She believed a\ncontinually operating mechanical ventilation system would be a drain on energy resources,\nand that non-operating windows would be a problem in a power outage.\nPresident Cook completely agreed with the staff report. She noted that she had visited\npreschools in that area at one time, but did not believe it would be a healthy place for\nhousing, given the jet traffic and noise. She believed this area should remain a\ncommercial/industrial use. She noted that this would be a good case study on the necessity\nof appropriate zoning.\nBoard member Cunningham concurred with the staff report, and believed that in this case, if\nyou build it, they will not come. He agreed that this demonstrated the importance of zoning,\nas well as controlling dysfunctional uses coming together.\nVice President Kohlstrand thanked staff and the members of the public, as well as the\napplicant, who put a great deal of effort into their presentation. She appreciated the\nrespectful manner in which the hearing was conducted. She believed that there was\noverwhelming opposition in the community, and did not hear one resident speak in support\nof this item. She believed that it would invite more problems if a residential neighborhood\nwere to be established near the runway. She did not believe the monetary benefits were an\nissue at all, because the uses were incompatible and that there would be noise complaints,\nregardless of any signed waiver. She could not support this request for a zoning change.\nBoard member Lynch concurred with the staff report. He believed this was very poor land\nuse planning, and that it was the applicant's right to come forward with such a request. He\nwould not support this application.\nBoard member McNamara concurred with the recommendation of the staff report. She\nbelieved the tax revenue benefit would disappear after Year 1, and it would be more\nbeneficial to allow the business park to be successful in recruiting and developing the land\nas it was initially designed. She could not support this application.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that relocating a business was time-consuming and\nexpensive, and that while there may be a time to make amendments, she did not believe this\nwas that time.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to deny\nthe proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning map amendment.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6.\nNoes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed.\nMr. Thomas noted that this decision may be appealed within 10 days.\nPresident Cook called for a five-minute recess.\nPage 12 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 13, "text": "4.\nMINUTES:\na.\nMinutes for the meeting of March 24, 2008.\nPresident Cook noted that page 7, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, \"She was\nconcerned that the quality of the back yard for the ground floor unit would be restricted\ncompromised because of private decks.\"\nBoard Member Cunningham moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2008, as\namended.\nBoard member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes:\n0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed.\nb.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008 (pending).\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\nc.\nMinutes for the meeting of April 28, 2008 (pending).\nThese minutes will be considered at a later meeting.\n6.\nPRESENTATIONS:\na.\nStaff Communications - Future Agendas\nMr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items. He noted that the May 27, 2008,\nmeeting held on Tuesday because of the holiday, would be held at the Mastick Senior\nCenter.\nMr. Thomas noted that the June 9, 2008, meeting would be held in the Library.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report - Meeting of April 15, 2008.\nMr. Thomas noted that the May 6 Zoning Administrator meeting had been canceled.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. Appointment of Planning Board Member to the Bicycle Plan Task Force.\nNo action was taken.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\nPage 13 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 14, "text": "a.\nTransmittal of Draft Pedestrian Plan\nMr. Thomas noted that the plan would be agendized for discussion at the next meeting.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member Cunningham noted that the Climate Protection Task Plan won an award.\nMs. Eliason noted that the award of merit from the Northern California Chapter of the\nAmerican Planning Association was presented for Community Green Building.\nBoard member Cunningham noted that award was a direct result of staff's hard work.\nPresident Cook noted that she had received several calls from Ms. Grabber regarding the\nnoticing requirements. The Board had discussed the need for noticing greater than 300\nfeet for the big projects with wide-ranging impact on people.\nMr. Thomas noted that was discussed with City Council when the Esplanade project\ncame forward. The City has committed to notify a larger area for the Harbor\nBay/Business Park projects, as well as to ensure that every homeowners association\npresident was noticed of every project. He invited ideas for improving noticing.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested keeping an up-to-date list of neighborhood,\nbusiness and other civic organizations that have been interested in planning issues.\nBoard member Lynch noted that this issue has come forward from time to time, and that\nin San Francisco, there were agencies that assist with notifying the public, including\nwebsite and email notification. He noted that some cities are adopting ordinances that\nexpand the notification radius.\nPresident Cook noted that Ms. Graber's concerns included the radius and the timing issue,\nand that there was often not enough time to get the community apprised of the issue.\nMr. Thomas noted that the notices went out 20 days before the meeting, as adopted by\nCity Council.\nMs. Eliason noted that AP&T no longer wants Planning staff to post notices on their new\npoles, and that staff now uses A-frame signs.\nMr. Thomas noted that if a resident wished to be on the email list, they would also\nreceive the staff reports.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:13 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPage 14 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 15, "text": "Andrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 15 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}