pages: PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |