2008-08-05 Joint 3-A Submittal~ 9
~ r
August 1, 2608
Alameda City Council
I have lived in my home for 37 years and owned it for 17. I provide a licensed low income rental over
my garage area. My grandfather was an Alameda policeman in the 18oos. We have his badge
number 1. The Victorian my mother grew up in still stands. l attended Edison School as did my son.
My son also attended Alameda High. My granddaughter attends elementary school. I retired from
teaching after 33 years and have substitute taught for the last 10 years. I love Alameda and want the
city government and the school district to be fair.
We need to uphold the 25°/° affordable housing requirement in every development. It is not equitable
and does not let the understanding and respect that grows from people living together from diverse
income levels, when we allow, in this case, Vllarmington Homes to get incentives and concessions to
place all of their very low, low and moderate rental units in one location. The families of the 5 units
moved to the Island High Site from Grand Marina are cheated out of home ownership. The Grand
Marina neighbors are denied living in a diverse income level neighborhood. The justifications for
moving the lower income units to the Island High Site are refuted in Melanie 1Nartenberg's
presentation submitted to the Planning Board at the July 23 meeting.
The density of the proposed 36 units, on less than an acre, of 2BR and 3BR rental units does not
respect the space of those living there or the rest of the neighborhood. Density creates parking,
traffic, noise and tension problems. According to page l of the Affordable Housing Agreement:
"Article 3 Reduced Gn-Site Alternative 3.1 Off-Site Affordable Development Developer has
expressed interest in acquiring asub-ground lease interest in the Island High School Site and
developing thereon an affordable rental or ownership housing development of between sixteen X16}
and thirty-six X36} units, in which at least four ~4} of the units would be affordable to and occupied by
Low Income Households, at least five ~5} Of the units would be affordable to and occupied by Ve
ry
Low Income Households, and the balance of the units, if any, would be affordable to and occupied b
Y
Moderate, Low or Very Low Income Households."
There could conceivably be all very low income, but 4 who are low income households. If this lack of
diversity of income, and the respect.which that brings were to occur, it would become a breeding
ground for frustration and possible crime, like the former Harbor Island Apartments. Problems with
crime were previously well documented at this site and the police department had to put in a
substation there.
If the Housing Element is enshrined by the Planning Board to allow an increase of units on a site
equal to the affordable housing, it will permit too much density. According to their documents the
Planning Board values open space, lower density and keeping with the homes of the neighborhood.
The Preservation Society and the Park Street North of Lincoln Gateway District values these goals as
well. The Island High neighborhood has many single family homes, many Victorians, and several
rentals, most not over 4 families per building. Submitted by Mary Burson at
the OS-85-QS Joint CouncillClD
meeting
Re: Agenda Item #3-A
b
If there were 36 units, there would be 50 to 1 QO more children in the Edison School area. The children
of the Island High area deserve to go to their neighborhood school. To travel to Haight would be
dangerous, displacing and much too far.
We need to create neighborhoods that teach our children the values of living together and respectin
g
people that are diverse, and that includes diverse in income levels. we need to provide an
environment for our children that is not too crowded. Put too many mice in a cage and they start
devouring each other. Over crowding has a bad effect on people as well. We need to teach our
children by example that we value what is fair and equitable.
vVe need to not allow a development company, by stating that only their proposal is financially
feasible, to profit at our children's expense and the expense of everyone. we need to not allow a
development company to put all low income levels at one site. It cheats the people at the one site and
it cheats the people of future development projects from the respect that comes from the diversi of
income levels.
vVe could probably support a project if it had perhaps 6 affordable units and 6 market value with some
for home ownership. Alameda Unified School District employees, whom the school district wants to
provide affordable housing for, would probably want to live in this neighborhood and would ualif .
q y
Another project at another site could also address AUSD employee needs.
Please be fair. Reject this proposal as it now stands.
Sincerely,
Patricia Paul
2426 Buena Vista Ave.
Alameda 9450
523 - 4205
Commissioners; Thank you for your time:
I would like to speak tonight about m strop o asition to th '
Y g pp e proposed 36 unit high
density apartment complex proposed for the former Island '
High on Eagle Avenue, I
object to this development project for man reasons and will '
Y highlight dust a few tonight.
Firstly, I believe the board made a mistake at the June 23rd m '
eeting when you approved
Catelluslwarmington's revised master lap allowin them to
p g move off site all of the low
and very low income housing they are re uired to build in ac
, , . q cordance with the
Inclusionary Housing Initiative. I am disturbed that commun'
ity members were not
notified prior to the June 23rd meeting, since the Island Hi
gh site is so prominently named
in the new master plan. Neighbors were not notified until Jul rd
y 23 ,well after we could
have appealed this board's decision to a rove Catellus' r
. PP equest. It is my hope that the
commissioners will not continue down this erroneous 0th but will re'ect fu
attem p ~ ~ rther
pts to receive approval for this project.
The Planning and Building Staff Re ort 9-D June 23 20 '
p 0S meeting indicates on page 3
an excerpt from the CIC Resolution and AMC Section 16.6 that ~V '
armington used to
justify the Island High off site pro osed ra'ect. Howev '
p p ~ er, each of the points Catellus
made was faulty, negligible, or incorrect. Each of these of
p nts was presented in section
III. A. Merits of the Island High Site.
b. ~,~site corrstruc~~on. hiclusionary Units may be constracted off site if the
Planning Board can make a ~indirig that the purposes of this Polic would be better se
construction of o.ff-site units. In Bete ' ' Y rued by the
rm~n~ng whether the purposes of this Policy would be better
served by this alternative, consideration should be given as to whether the o~=site units
located in aD area where, based on availabili would be
ty of affordable housing, the need for such units is
greater than the need in the area of the proposed development.
Related to point #1: Geographic distribution of affordabl
e housing units warmington
made a point of stating that the majorit of all low income h '
th ~ y, ousing is on the West end of
e island and somehow justified the suitabilit of the Island
t Y High site as preferred over
he Grand Marina site because it associated the Grand M '
anna site with the low income
housing on the west end. In fact, the Grand Marina si '
to is itself in the Eastern sector of
the island according to the City website's own cit ' '
y map. Additionally, VVarnaington is
comparing apples and oranges by includin all low inco
g me rental units and senior
housing in it's assertions, The city has, in actualit 20°
y, /o more low income owned homes
along the Park Street corridor than it does in the Grand '
Manna area and 100% more than
the zero on the west end of the island. The five affor '
dable to very low income homes
offered for purchase in KB Homes Marina Cove deve
lopment had over 240 applicants, so
there is an obvious need for low income urchasa '
p ble homes in the area of the Grand
Marina site.
Related to point #2: Number of affordable housin un'
., g xis. The figure oI 16 potential
allorclable units at the Island High site is redicated on t
~ s P he City ofAlameda Housing
Element;.007-2014 Land Avallabalit and Su 1 T
Y pp y able document provided as part of
the July 2$ .Planning Board meetin acket
gp
(hit alwww.ci,alameda.ca.uslarchive120081attachmen
tsl b sub 1256, d~} The Land
AvailabilEty and Supply Table suggests that if warmin on
gt Homes was not permitted to
count any additional affordable housing units at Island Hi toward
gh s future requirements,
and not permuted to transfer affordable units from Gi•and
Marina to Island High, then the
Island High School Site would still su ort 16 affardable u '
pP nits so allowing wan~~ington
to build on the Island High site creates 12 less low incom
e housing opportunities in the
long run,
Griginal Project After the P.B. A roved F' r
pp ending
Grand Marina 10
5
island High 16
36
Future Project 2~
_ 0
Tatal ~3
41
Reduction; 12 units
Related to Point #3: Suitability of the Island Hi Site: T ' '
gh his site is in fact not any better
served by public transit than the Grand Marina site with a
bus stop less than 3 blocks
#rom the Grand Marina site and the bus sto not the ro
p ( ute~ still 2 blocks from the Island
High site~this difference seems quite ne li 'ble. Warmi
g ~ ngton also indicated the
convenience of services such as the Market lace one block a '
to indi p way. It is completely absurd
sate that a gourmet and organic marke lace riced often ov '
~ p er 3x the cost o~ other
stares is a useable service for very low and low income families. '
Similarly, Nob Hill
foods is more of a boutique grocer store and ma no
Y y t be f nancially accessible for low
ancome residents. It is likely that the residents of this ro osed c
travel a mi p p omplex would have to
le to the South Shore Safeway or even across the Par 7
k Street Bndge to the
Fruitvale shopping center to shop at Luck , Other nearb
Y y Park Street shops and
restaurants are also often upscale as are the pro osed laps forth
Gatewa ar ~ P p e new North of Lincoln
y ea. It is no more inconvenient for Grand Marina low incom
at the nearb Alb ~ e residents to shop
y ertsan s than it is for them to find usable o tions near the Islan '
site. P d High
For all these reasons, I believe that commissioners mad
e a mistake in approving
wannington's plan. This board in 2006 ex ressed c '
p oncerns to ~Varir~~ngton and required
changes to their plan asking fore uit in the law in
q Y come and n~aiket rate housing ~n their
development. At that time this board recommended
that at least two of the affordable
housing units be three stories to offer a ualit i '
q y n the low income and market rate homes.
How is it, that 2 years later, it is fair to offer low in
come residents rental apartments in a
high density, entirely low income site vs the o
pportunity to own their own homes within a
mixed new development in accordance with the s ' '
pint of the Inclusionary Houszng
Initiative? V~armington Homes is interested in ro
p fit and if proft means psuhing all low
income housing out of it's nice new nee borhood th '
~ an that is what the would like
Y
permission to do. It is this planning board's res onsibilit to be intere '
p y steel in good city
planning and that includes planning well for the welfare and we
11 bung of all of
Alameda's residents, including our most vulnerable who deserv
e the chance to have
equitable housing options.
Thank you.
Melanie wartenberg
2422 Eagle Av
I am strongly opposed to the proposed affordable housin a Bement with Wa '
Ho ~ g ~ rmington
mes for the Grand Marina Project as are all my nee hors and man other Alam
.. ~ y eda
citrzens.
It is my belief that the Planning Board's decision to allow Warmin onto mov '
gt a its low
and very low income homes off site to the proposed Island Hi site was a m'
gh stake. The
evidence Warmington presented to defend this re nest was incorrect and the I '
q sland Hlgh
site does not support and better serve the City's affordable housin olicies. It i
g p s my hope
that the CIC tonight well stop this project rather than let the snowball con i
t nee to grow
and gather speed.
To address each point used to allow the Master Plan revision:
-First, The Grand Marina site is not on the Nest end of the island and Warmi
ngton
cannot therefore make the point that it is already surrounded b the ma'orit of th
Y ~ y e
Island's low income hauling. The City of Alameda website identifies the si '
to as in the
Eastern sector of the Island so putting the units where the belon at Grand '
Y g Marina is,
itself, increasing low income housrng on the East end. The Island hi site is
.. gh more east
but ~t is, in fact, a neighborhood largely segregated from what is considere
d the
prosperous East end and is already struggling with parking issues due to the auto
businesses, overcrowding in the Edison school zone and balancin the n
g eels of mixed
income residences and industrial areas,
-Second, This project actually reduces the # of units of low income housin f '
g or the island
because if V~armington put the 5 homes at Grand Marina and an other '
y homes in future
complexes they were required to build, then AUSD could create their own lan f
buildin the low incom P or
g e employee housing they would like to build and that would be in
addition to all mandated Warmington homes pro'ects. Wh do ou want to 'v
~ Y Y ~ e away
usable land to Warmington, who is required to build their share of low inc '
ome housing
anyway~let them build it on their own land, not use AUSD land.
-Third, The Island High site is NAT better located for affordable housi
ng than the Grand
Marina site. It is the same distance from bus sto s, and not an closer to ac
p y teal usable
services for low income families has opposed to the unusable services Warmi
ngton put
forth like the Marketplace which is obviousl wa too ove riced to
Y Y rp be useful for very
low income families.}
-Most importantly, the Island High neighborhood is a stru lin nei
. gg g ghborhood already
saturated with low income and affordable apartments that are mixed throe
ghout the
historic homes of the neighborhood. 4n m block alone the block
Y of Eagle the Island
High site is on, there are only 10 homes and 6 of there are broken dow '
n Into low and
affordable rental apartments with rents ran 'n from $500- 900 '
~ g $ a month totaling at least
1 S low incomelaffordableapartments alread on that block. In the su
Y rrounding blocks of
Everett and Eagle there are many more additional low rent a artm
p eats. So ~t ~s
completely false that this neighborhood is more in need of low incom
e housing than the
Grand Marina site.
Submitted by Melanie
UVartenberg a# the 08-05-08
Joint CouncillClC meetin
g
Re. Agenda Item #3-A
Eastern Portion -City of Alameda California
l~ttp:llwww.ci.alameda.ca. uslcomrrtunitylmap3.htlnl
HOME NEWS SERVICES GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY BUSINESS SEARCH
Eastern Portion
Al~medi I~tce~.
The Mayor and City Counal invite
you tv use Alameda Access to i
~ communicate your questions,
concerns or compliments. It's easy;
just dick an the Alameda Access ~
button and the program will walk you i
through the process.
Climate Protection
Alameda Walks
Community Links
Community Services Agencies
1=areclosure Assistance
Historic Alameda Theater
l~istariral Preservation
Alameda History
Housing
Alameda Free Library
Maps
Webster Disfict Strategic Plan
Northern Waterfront General Plan
Amendment
Transportation Master Plan
Parking in Alameda
~, ~ 'r ~
a
~` ~ ~
' ~ ~.
? ~
ii
1
71] , 51
~ ~ ~
~
~ N11M11 ~~
l.~
~. ~ ~
~~
~~~ ~ ~ J ~
~
~ I
~~ H
~
~~~~~1
~
,~
.Y !
~ rI
7
~ -~
~
~~ ~ ~
~y
~ ~
~~
1 ~
~
~.,_
ti
`~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~f~ll
R
~ ~~
~ `4
~,
~
4} - ~
~~
,~, ,Id"',~
" ~~` ~
raw ~``
. ~, ~~+
~ . +~
4
_ ~
+ `~~ ~ N 14~q
elu~
~~ nt~i~t~+i
. .' 4rMe1
' ..
•. s~ A4+Mr
tyl~r,~ ~~
~ ~I' l~sk
`~-.~ ~~~
i
~ ' ~J
'~`~ ~ ~~ ~
Y~4
~~
~~, .. -
.,~ ~,
~`~: ~~
-.r....~,~ ~.. ~1
maps copyright ~ Eureka Cartography all rights reserved
r ~~~
,~ SECURE
TESTED ?~-JlJL
City of Alameda
General info: 51 B 7~7-7~
Alameda Clty Hall
22fi3 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda CA 94583 [get map}
HOME NEWS SERVICES
Terms of Use Privacy Accessi
City of
www
copyright ~? 1998 - 2008 all nghts reserved
f
,,
Rnint fhf~'p~~e
,
,~
l~lt~l~l';1t.
GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY BUSINESS T
bility Contact Webmaster Site Map Search ~ ~,' K ~~, ~'
Alameda California
.ci.alameda.ca.us ~~,~ ~~ ~~,b1~#~
~ of 1 71?61aS ~ 0: 47 A M
< read more>
~~c~rnes~~ 'I~ Icy, ,n ~ ~~c!``~ ~n ~ ~ ~1C~~
n
Commissioners; Thank you for your time:
I would like to speak tonight about my strong opposition to the proposed 3b unit hi
density apartment complex proposed for the former Island High on Eagle Avenue. I
object to this development project for many reasons and will highlight just a few toni t.
Firstly, I believe the board made a mistake at the June 23rd meeting when you a raved
pp
CatelluslWarmington srevised master plan allowing them to move off site all of the low
and very low income housing they are required to build in accordance with the
Inclusionary Housing Initiative. I am disturbed that community members were not
notified prior to the June 23rd meeting, since the Island Hi site is so raminentl named
~ p Y
in the new master plan, Neighbors were not notif ed until July 23rd, well after we could
have appealed this board's decision to approve Catellus' request. It is my ho e that the
p
commissioners will not continue down this erroneous path, but will reject further
attempts to receive approval for this project.
The Planning and Building Staff Report 9-D June 23, 2008 meeting indicates on a e 3
Pg
an excerpt from the CIC Resolution and AMC Section 16.b that Warmington used to
justify the Island High off site proposed project. However, each of the points Catellus
made was faulty, negligible, or incorrect. Each of these points was presented in section
III. A. Merits of the Island High Site.
b. ~1,~`=s~~e cvrr~~ruc~iorx. tnclusionary Unit may be con~~ucted off site if ~.e
Planning .Beard can make a finding that the parposes of this Polley would be better served by the
const~ction ofoff-site units, ~ deternuning whether the purposes ofchis Policy would be better
served by this alternative, consideration should be given as to whether the off-site uni#s would be
located in an area where, based on availability of affordable housing, the need for such twits is
greater than the need in the area of the proposed development.
Related to point #1: Geographic distribution of affordable housing units Warmin on
made a point of stating that the majority of all low income housing is on the West end of
the island and somehow justified the suitability of the Island High site as referred over
p
the Grand Marina site because ~t associated the Grand Marina site with the low income
housing on the West end. In fact, the Grand Marina site is itself in the Eastern sector of
the island according to the City website's own city map. Additionall , Warmin on is
Y gt
comparing apples and oranges by including all low income rental units and senior
housing in it's assertions. The city has, in actuality, 20% more low income owned homes
along the Park Street corridor than it does in the Grand Marina area and 100% more than
the zero on the Nest end of the island. The five affordable to ve law income homes
ry
offered for purchase in KB Homes Marina Cove development had over 200 a licants so
pP
there is an obvious need for low income purchasable homes in the area of the Grand
Marina site.
Related to point #2: Number of affordable housing units: The fi pure oI' 1 ~ otential
g A
affordable units at the Island High site is predicated on the Cit of Alameda Housin
.. y g
Element 2007-2014 `Land Availability and Supply Table' document rovided as ax~t of
the p p
July 28 .Planning Board meeting packet
(htt :llwww.ci.alameda.ca.uslarchive120oSlattachmentsl b sub 125G. df~ The Land
Availability and Supply Table suggests that if warmington Homes was not pez~nitted to
count any additional affordable housing units at Island High towards future requirements,
and not permitted to transfer affardable units from Grand Marina to Island High, then the
Island High School Site would still support I G affardable units so allowing warn~ington
to build on the Island High site creates 12 less low income housing opportunities in the
long run.
Original Project After the P.B. Approved Finding
Grand Marina 1 Q ~
Island High 1G 3G
Future Project 27 p
Tatal 5 3 41
Reduction: I2 units
Related to Point #3: Suitability of the Island High Site: This site is in fact not any better
served by public transit than the Grand Marina site with a bus stop less than 3 blocks
from the Grand Marina site and the bus stop (not the routed still 2 blocks from the Island
High site-this difference seems quite negligible, warmington also indicated the
convenience of services such as the Marketplace one black away. It is completely absurd
to ~nd~cate that a gourmet and organic marketplace priced often aver 3x the cost of'other
stores is a useable service for very low and low income families. Similarly, Nob Hill
foods is snore of a boutique grocery store and may not be f nancially accessible for low
income residents, It is likely that the residents of this proposed complex would have to
travel a mile to the South Shore Safeway or even across the Park Street Bridge to the
Fruitvale shopping center to shop at Lucky. tither nearby Park Street shops and
restaurants are also often upscale as are the proposed plans for the new North of Lincoln
Gateway area. It is no more inconvenient for Grand Marina low incoxne residents to sho
P
at the nearby Albertson s than it is far them to find usable options near the Island High
site,
For all these reasons, I believe that commissioners made a mistake in approving
~Vartnington's plan. This board in 2~OG, expressed concerns to war~nington and re aired
q
changes to their plan asking for equity in the low income and market rate housin in their
g
development. At that time this board recommended that at least two of the affordable
housing units be three stories to offer equality in the low income and market rate homes.
How is it, that 2 years later, it is fair to offer low income residents rental apartments in a
high density, entirely low income site vs the opportunity to own their own homes within a
mixed new development in accordance with the spirit of the Inclusion Housin
. ~'y g
Initiative? warm~ngton Homes is interested in profit and if profit means psuhin all low
•~ g
income housing out of it s nice new neighborhood, than that is what they would like
permission to do. It is this planning board's responsibility to be interested in good city
planning and that includes planning well for the welfare and well being of all of
Alameda's residents, including our most vulnerable who deserve the chance to have
equitable housing options.
Thank you.
Melanie wartenberg
2422 Eagle Av
PETITIONS
It has only yesterday been brought to the neighborhood's attention by VVarmington
Homes that they assert Catellus is not involved in this project. It is with our apolo ies
g
that petitions Implicate Catellus in partnership with ~Varmington, however it is clear in
the text of the petition what the petitioners are opposing.
HELP BLOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
We, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose V~'armington HomeslCatellus DeveIopment's plans far a 36 unit develo
meet proaect at the former Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the low and very !ow income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma-
rinasite, and relocated to the comer site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percents a of
g
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
We believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the nei h-
boyhood. Vie urge the Plarwng Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tive use design to keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Signature Address Name (print)
' ~~ ~~ ~ "v X^ ~~ir/~/~
~l
L ~ ~ .
"-
,,
y ~~0
s ci ~[~~'K ~ r
c. 3~ ~ o ~~c1 ~S~,cli s~t~
(,~ ~. ~
~ ZS21 Fns ~~~, Da a~.~(~ ~,o I f~PrT1~N r~
~ ~. ~~c ~ o ~/2z ~ ~Qoe ~~ ~~~, cA ~ QN~ c ; o ~'
9ysr~z .~~.~ Y~~.~
~ Ind Ill ~ - ~Vin~s
r z ~ Zc~ 07
~ ~3 - `-~- ~ a- c~
~ `I ~~~ t a ~w~ w~-~. 3 4 12 f~ R 1 ~F FI o~ N L r~
11 ~ 4 Z ~ i, _ ~ ~~ M A iz \ A
A. _ 1 i S c~ ~N1 M a
T
5
~~
M~~
zti ~Q~,,~t~ -~2515 ~~ ~'~E ~~ '
z~ ~15~~(-~ ~~k~'~1
r ~
Z`- ~/ ~
~) ~f5 L~ ~L.~ ~y
32 ~~
J„
2`-~l'~ E ~~lP /ivy «„~_... ,.
3. 16 ~xirJlP,¢J AUK /~~'a'¢~; ('% ( ~ ic'
/, < ff ~ l ~
3~ ~ 3~~a I~rid~~~~e~
3-~ ,(i(a~r~ f~~/~ 0 33Cx5 13/~a~~uie~
3s Lh~L.E1 hC~A1~R1~11 ~3(7U ~K~DG~vl~v iS
3~ ~~~I~~. W~~1~~ ~~~~Fl ~~~ Vi~~ ~,~
37 ~"la/~ ~'~as'T;neZ G2~/S ~~e~c~/~c %vG
~u =v~ irft SArroS in2~ AUCcq -~.
39 'i . i~~ `63Z c~aS,~ S+
do l ~ 15 l{; s~~'
H ~ r ~ L UbC~- ~ 2.~ ~+~
~3 ~s~~`~~ ~~1L l~ Pew ~ 5-~
y s ~~~-~~:~. ~ ~~~Q'~
U
y X C~~z~ L ~.,,~:~~~3
~ ~~
o~'16S
~
Sl~o~-~ ~~e V
-IJ~ ~~ aa~l
-~~
~~ ~G~ ~~
~
a,
~-1 ~ ~ ~a~ `j. ~I''~..
-1~~3 ~:~ :'4~2~
1~ v + / ~ y
U
Ysle
~sj~
;~ c_
`~~~ ~~~
~~~
~~
~'
~~i
r
HELP BLACK ANaTHER
We, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose ~Varmington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 36 unit develo~-
ment project at the former Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the low and very low Income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma-
rina site, and relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
We believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. We urge the Planning Board, the City Coune~l, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tive use design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Sig atu i Address Name (print)
~ ~~
~ ~
~ - ~ ~
~~~ ~
s ~2 C~ k ~~«~1~- C?~ r~yy~
U 'u~ ~ ~ ~>' .-wR,
~ _ iIiGCL ,tip` ~ ~ jsp ~ a~
n
n
S~ r r,
6~ ~ G~ ~~n
~o G~' IU ~ c ~ I ,,yes w 6 ~l-~~~
,3 T,-<.s~ m~~~ . s a~~ ~3ca~~ sue. ~s;;Z ~~,~a- ,~~e~;
`--
nA nA /~.2n
IV ~ 2~ ~ Vy ~Gi v S../ V ~. /C CL
7C ~ lei /_
~I
~~
v
~i~~U
HELP BLACK ANTHER
we, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose Warmingtan HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 3b unit develop-
ment project at the former Island High School site an Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the low and very low income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma-
rinasite, and relocated to the corner site of the farmer Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to Iow income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
'we believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. We urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate ar alterna-
tiveuse desigm inkeeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Signature Address Name {print)
2
~~ ~
~~
~~
r~
~~
4
~~~
f ~,
`~ ~
S~
l~ ~~
z ~
..
-r
~ ~~~~~
`r
~r~"
•°
f.~
J ~- G-
HELP BLOCK ANTHER
we, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose V~armington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 36 unit develop-
ment project at the farmer Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the low and very Ivw income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma-
rinasite, and relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit o~ the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
We believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. ~Ve urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tive use design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Sign tune ~ Address Name sprint)
~ ~` ~ ~~.
. ,
A
i
~ r
~ ~ ~ r~~
Zsz~ ~lk~~O r~ s-~ :9.e
tb ~,o '. ,'~U . o- C s Cm~raRf~i--
50 ~J
HELP BLOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
'fie, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose Warmington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 3b unit develop-
ment project at the former Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the Iow and very Iow income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma-
rina site, and relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
~Ve believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. ~e urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tiveuse design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
~~
~~
~a'~,-rcrs 5;7~~~1P i 7 1 ~ .t-' e,-B7 f-~ l=iar ~r~s ~~-f~l~c'~
t3 ~GL SW/h a e y l ~ / 1- f=,~ R t~7` ~t ~ r-0/ S~u'i~rr~
~ . ~,
,~
r. ~
r~ /_•
~ ~^
. , r 1~
a
~~S N~P.A / . I1FFl=/~!SD '~ LI/U cY1LLt b~,f C' ,n. '\ .1/
Signature Address Name (print)
HELP 6LOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
We, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose Warmington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fvr a 36 unit develop-
ment project at the former island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the law and very law income housing units to be reroaved from the developer's Grand Ma-
rina site, and relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
We believe tlvs development, if built as planned, will be too large, tvo dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. yVe urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or altema-
tiveuse design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
r /~.~,~ /.?tie u.C~ ~ i 3 7 ~"G~, ~ (~.M,.~ Q.~
z lL~cc~,a~ . _ ..
3 ~1~
s ~~ `
--
~~
~~i ~r~een0.cr~~Qe 1
ID n ~
•Z ~,i,~v ~~n 1~C~ ~+n~"~txe~,ar~ A1c~m~n,(A 1~lel~~~n ~}an
~y ~1%/.ui~r /~lfl~ff~~"'v! ~~~o/Gi.9/~1~- ~i~~~ ~ ~r~~;~~y
~s J
~e ~h Ah lo~~ Pzu~ ~t• Alghieda c~, y~ ! ~
., `4ic0~e9 Alam- M~ ~,
~~ i~K~ ~.~~ 4t P~,~,i~ ~~ CIS ~~~NA~
~g ~.. a __ ~~ ~I ie,an ~~Pa ~ 'N F o.,~tnn ~ ~ xln -~t->/:~-'~~i~
Y,pme (print)
r
;h~~f
~~i~.
~~~s.
HELP BLACK ANTHER
'V~e, the undersigned residents ofAlameda, strongly oppose warmington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 3b unit develop-
ment project at the farmer Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the low and very low income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma-
rinasite, and relocated to the corner site of the former island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
we believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. Vie urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna
tine use design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
5igna u Address Name (print)
~ ~ ~ r ~- ~~~~ ~
~ i
~i ?if 1~ ~! ~ rT / J.~ _~ 1 I ~l f~ ~ 1 „ D . ~i~r .~P , ~ _ ~-~ ., ~.'~ ~ .• ~ ~ ~ ; 1 `/~ r~ :,.
S
v
7
Y
9
io
~Z "
s3
t `+
~s ~
~u
c
i7 G
1 yS _/
1 S w.,,1
Z°~
~~~
Zz ~~m
~~~
~~~~ ~
L„J V l ~/ ] ~.~
~~rr r~wwMwr~
~ ~~~~
~nss ~cs~or
Z ~l
~h~~
,~
~~
~ r~ F~ ~~~.,~
~n~
iC
HELP BLOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
We, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose Wartnington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 36 unit develop`
meet project ai the former island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the Ivw and very low income housing units to be removed Pram the developer's Grand Ma-
rinssite, and relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the faw requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to law income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
We believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. We urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tiveuse design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Signature
r b~'~~. ~
~ ~~ ~'v
3
y
S
i~
~~
Address
~/ .
~~~
5- J.~ftS P-~~
i~
~ ~ G ~ Gf ~+ ~~i ~~~C- / ~~ ~~~2~G V r/ 4
~ 3 0? 7 ' ~1~ti ~. ~l ~l 1P S~ r ~~P
.~
~1 _ •
r/T T D % ~4 A
~.
z-
•'_L
Name (print
,a ~t
G¢-~ ~~ ~~Ov ~!~ C
HELP BLOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
We, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose Wannington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 3b unit develop"
merit project at the former Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls far ALL of the low and very Iow income housing units to be t~emoved From the developer's Grand Ma-
rinasite, and relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to law income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
We believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. We urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tiveuse design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Signature Address Name (print)
G ~~
~ ~~r-~~~ 4 ~ ~ ~.
~ ~ ~.~ ~
~ ~ ~~7 ~ ~~
t~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~~
r
~..
~~
i-
tZ
~~
5
r~,
' ~, ~
,~
~~~
t,
u-v~ ~ l v~~r' c.I~.~ ~
~7i 7 v hC'~~ fer~~r~c% OPr Yf'~-~
~_
L . ~-1i ~'1c.6
HELP BLOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
'fie, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose ~arnungtan HomeslCafellus Developmentrs plans far a 36 unit develo
P-
ment pra~ect at the former Island Hrgh School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls far ALL oi'the iow and very !ow income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma~
rina site, and relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the Iaw requiring developers to build a certain percenta a of
g
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
~e believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and fatally out of keeping with other homes in the nei h-
borhood. we urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tive use design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Signature
~C
L
3
Address
Name ~print~
~~ ~:
.; _r.
...
.,,~~
:~: '~-~~
HELP BLOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
We, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose Warmington HameslCatellus Development's plans fora 3b unit develop-
ment project at the former Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan ca11s for ALL of the low and very low income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand Ma-
rinasite, and relocated to the corner site of the former island High School, along with do2ens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate to low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels. -.
We believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. We urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropnate or alterna-
tive use design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Signature Address Name (print)
~hi`z~i' ~C~_e~~~slG~-~S~ i7/G ~ls„~~~~;,~Y~~xc~r,~~e- l~''~a~Y~~.r'eT r~"1 ~r2r~~1G'caRU
~~~ LEI. ~`y
~~
~~
~~
t ~i~~ .- Pik ~r~~ ~Ne i~~~~l P6~~..,
fS~~ :i/ Z~Ih EAi~~C- Ati~ Ctnd~ bw,ti
l~ ~Lv„j7,,~- 2µlY EAa~e fl-Jt K2V1~- P~w~
,,~~~.
d
i1 ~1~...J.:~ zviy `eFlaiE FYVZ ~`i~a, Pti~v,
HELP BLOCK ANOTHER
CATELLUS LAND GRAB
Vie, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose'l~armington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 36 unit develop`
ment project at the former Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the bw and very low income housing units to be moved from the developer's Grand Ma-
rina site, Wuxi relocated to the corner site of the former Island High School, along with drnrlens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusionary Housing initiative, the law requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Moderate [o low income units along with those at market value, and seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
We believe this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
borhood. We urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the Board of Education to come up with a more appropriate or alterna-
tive use design in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood.
Signature Address Name (print)
3 J.t' (C:ptu,
y ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q, ~ ~t ~~ U~~, V G`
S . ~ c~.,~~ Zs~t ~ ~ gKSal Flmy ~A~~-
c~ 25~~ ~~a 1 `iy O~ C re- p~~lnm
~i
`1~~, th~~ ~indcr~i~ncd r~~ic~en#~~ c~1~Alam~da, 5trc~n~ly c~ppt~~c Warrnin~t~m }~;~m~slCalellu,~ Ik-~cl~~pmcnt', pl~n~ I„r << ~~~ un~~ ~f~~ ~~I~+E~
-1~~~~t ~~rt7~cc:t at the t-c~rn~cr Island Nigh Schcx~l ~itc un E.~~~#c A~~cn~ac, e~~t c~l~ E';.irf~ fit.
;'~ ~ 3t ~t;arxl,~, t~rc plan calf fcx A~~, a~ ~fi~ ~~ arv3 rery bv~ ~nsome ho~~ng vn~~ ~a ~ ~~v~+d frnm ti~~ e~~~e~~vp~r'~ ~Ya~nd ~~ia-
~na ~~le, anc~ r~.lc~:atcd i+~ the ~.+~rner ~~ic +~l the I~~~rmc~ I~;i.~n~l l~~i~h ~cl•r~~jl, ~~l~~n~ 4~ nth ~~+yicn,~ E-t 4 rtk~ir ~~~it~.
~~'hiy ~~~car#~ ~y ~:~~ntr~~;t~ tc~ th~~ tip~r~l a~~- the 1-~;l~s~~~rn:~r} }~c~utiin~! Er~it~~Eti~c, the la~~ rcyu~rrn~ ~kmcl~~pc~ti tc~ buEl~l ~ ~:c~~~xin Ix~r~~cr~t~«;~ ~~I
~~Zf~.l~~.at~ t~~ lc~u 1~~c~rn~~ ~in~a~ vQ~ ~r~~~ fat m~~rlccr ~~Rtwa:, snd ~~c~~ tc~ ~:~e~~ta~ rac~~hh~~~~x ~~Fth ~~ rr~~~ lrt ~n~+-~si~ ~~~~~Iti.
~~`c Ixfie~c thi~d~~cl«pmcnl, it h~~ilt a.~ planned, wil! be tcx~ la~~,e, tcx~den~c, attd ~c~tall}~ c~ut+~i l;ccp~n~ -~~~lh t~thc~ i~{7mcti in the f~c~~~
h+~nc~xx~. iWe ur~~ the Pl~nn~n~ ~~d, ~hc C~~~. Ccrs~~:dl, ~ tl~ ~~~~d ~~~~ ~~d~~~~~~ ec>c+~r~: ~~o±~h ~+ ~r+rr~~ ~p~c~r~~~t~ ~~ ~~t~;rn~+-
ti~~ ~4~i~ ~#ctii.~s~ rn ir~~~~n~ d~ttl~ tl~ ~tufc ¢>i t~. n~:~p;h~+~h~nx1.
~i~na~u~~
Add~~~
=-~~
z
3
5 l~
r ~
~a~n~~ (prink ~
~2~(0 ~ompS~ P~
a
'z 7 .A,~ ti
3~<1' 'll~omp or f~/P
J.z~3
~~ ~
f~~ ~av,sfic,- ~'
~' _
CATELLUS LANll (TitA~i
- ',
1We, the undersigned residents of Alameda, strongly oppose V~armington HomeslCatellus Development's plans fora 3~ unit develop
meat pra,~e~t at the former Island High School site on Eagle Avenue, east of Park St.
/~`s 1;i ~ ~s [fie an ca~[s .For AFL of the iOw and ve low income housing units to be removed from the developer's Grand 1VIa-
J il~ ~~ ~ ~,7, ~4~ ~1~ ~~J l~~ ~~ ~~ l~~ ~~1~ ~~~~ 1\+~ oi~ i ~1.~i7:'~~p~y lIJ` ~ rNl { dIIFr Fri ti~:• v ~'P e~y r..i f ~i i ., .,, ~ ,,, f ,~
~' 11l~ it~~~~ ~~ w ~ n'j l{ ~'{ '.., p, .~ 1` j' ! ~'i F '~+~ ! ~~~
fi~ ~~ ~C ~ b~1M~i ~e~ 11'o~KM ~t~o r. `oia~i•.N ~ 'a~et~• frtd'°
ring site, ~~nci rclcx:~tecf tc, the cr~rner rite cif the farmer ~~iand High Schcx~l, a~~ng with dcr~,~ng of other untt~.
~t'h~s c~earfy is u~ntrary to the spirit of the Inctusionary Housing initiative, the !aw requiring developers to build a certain percentage of
Mcxterate tc~ low income units along with those at market value, and seek~ti to create neighborhoods with a mix of income levels.
VVc bclieti~c this development, if built as planned, will be too large, too dense, and totally out of keeping with other homes in the neigh-
tx~nc~xx~. We urge the Planning Board, the City Council, anc~ the Bc~ire~ cif Edueaticm to come up with a more appropriate car alterna-
li~c u~c ~csig~~ in ~ccpin~ ~4~• the nalufiu c f the nei~,hbunc~xxl.
r ~ ~ ~ Cl~
~. ~~
~~
5~ mature . Vf ~ Address
~.
G~11ti~na~n~x~- f+~4s P~~acl ~n ~ crr~~SP rR TuR~
Cif ~y ~iNil~1S I UfFZdN
~~!' S ~~C~ ~ A
~ ~
~ ~ ,
~' ~ - ~~
].
~~
/?
~~
}~ .
~~.
~' .
~.
1~.
~ ~" .
Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab Petition : [ powered by iPeti... http:Jlw~~u~.ipetitions.comJpetitian{stop Catellus_grab o~ islandhighl
Powered by iPetitians -start your online petition now
Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab
petition text signatures email friends
~~°tse ~~tsfion
We, the undersigned, strongly oppose Vllarmington HameslCatellus Development's plan far a 36 unit
development project at the farmer Island High School site at Eagle Avenue and Everett, 1 block east
of Park St.
As it stands, the plan calls for ALL of the Iow and very law income housing units to be removed #rom
the developer's Grand Marina site, and relocated ba the less than 1 acre comer site of the farmer
Island High Schoa#, along with dozens of other units.
This clearly is contrary to the spirit of the Inclusianary Housi-~g Initiative, the law requiring developers
fQ build a certain percentage of moderate to law income units along with these at market value, and
seeks to create neighborhoods with a mix of income #evels.
we believe this dove#opment, if built as planned, wi11 be boa large, tea dense, and totally out of
keeping with other homes in the neighborhood. We urge the Planning Board, the City Council, and the
Beard of Education to came up with a mare appropriate ar alternative use design in keeping uvith the
nature of the neighborhood.
Sign the petition
Fields marked ~ ere required.
Name: ~~~
"Email:
Comments:
r wisp#ay my name as anonymous on the signatures fist
~ Yes, I want iPetitians th car>tact me an similar campaigns ar petitions.
Sign petition >~
Petition sponsor
http:Ilactionalameda,arglactio.,,
Links
ht~:llactionala meda.arglactia...
~, c~~
How to Forman
LLC Free
Screw the lawyers!
Screw the online
58rViGeS.
~-~-yoursel# today
FREE
wti~rw,LLCAcMser,com
The views expressed in this petition are
solely those of the petition`s sponsor
and da not in any way retied the views
of iPetitians. iPetitians is solely a
provider of technical services to the
petition sponsor and cannot be held
liable for any damages or injury or other
harm arising from this petition. In the
event no adequate sponsor is named,
iPetitians will consider the individual
account Bolder with which the petition
was created as the lawful sponsor.
iPetitians is owned and operated by Angle Three Associates, LLC - AN material 0 Copyright Angle Three Assodates, LLC,199~B-20D6 -terms of use
1 of 1 815108 7:03 PM
Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab Petition : ~ powered b~ iFeti... http:Jlwww.ipetitions.camlpetitionfstop catellus_grab o~ is~andhigh...
Powered by iPetitians - start ya~,r online p~
Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab
petition text ~gnatures email friends
Low Income Apartments Apartments t'or Any Budget
Need a r~ew apartment? View millions here - Search over 6MM listings W/ Phatas And Floor
photo`s, Floor plans, etc... Plans. Register Today
~~ ~ Goo~[e
S~gn~ture~ ~ ~~et~l: ~~
Paga `.__~~.~r5#+~..~..P!w.. C~....2. ':;~nax4'~..~.tas~,_"_.
# Name Comments
The lndusionary Housing Initiative ~ meant to help communities by providing moderate and Iow
income families the apporbunity to have a home alongside those of greater means. The
1 Heath Carlisle developer's proposal seeks to condense 36 of those fam~ies into rental unit on less than an acre
of land. It's a shame to see a large developer like this try to pull a'~ast one", relying on
misinformation and public apathy to increase their profit margin. vVe shall cxxrtinue to be vigilant.
This is a throwback to the failed public housing projects of the 1960s, where developers swept all
the lowest income people out of their projects with ~1 million waterfront homes and concentrated
them into high~ensity apartment blacks. Harbor lslandApartments -now Summerhouse ~ in
Alameda is an example. It was built in the 60s as a HUD law-income project, then around 1998,
it was converted to amarket-rate complex, and sparked the Guyton Lawsui#. From then an, even
~ David Howard though there were ultimately many, many Section 8 thnants in the complex, which the City of
Alameda Housing Authority is supposed to inspect, the complex was avowed tv deteriorate so
badly that a new developer came in and evicted all the tenants to renovate ib During the'90s and
'40s while the project was allowed to deteriorate, police service calls to the complex
skyrocketed, and tenants complained that the units were not being maintained. This ~
documented in Alameda City Counal meeting minutes through 20D2 to 2gg4.
3 Malyka Chap Stop this project far 36 law to very low income apartments. It is bad far the city, the
nerghborhoad, and very bad for AUSD who could develop this site in a more profitable manner.
4 Sean Cahill l do not want this island high project tv be built. Unfair in the inclusionary housing initiative.
~ Kany Kelley
6 Rosemary
McNally
l Patricia Bail Another assult on Measure A and bu~~ing even more jhgh denstiy housing in an already built out
community.
8 Jennifer Cabb
9 Karen Nelson Keep the let#er of the agreement Catellus, and put the housing in the Grand Marina site!!!
eery
~D
Mathieson
't't Griffith D. Neal
tZ Margie
Hey vutthere....l haven`t heardlread anything about this proposal being an out and out violation of
~3 Anonymous MEASURE A. The guise of so-called'affardable housing' is a typically used day by developers
to build and fatten their coffers. An obvious alternate use far this property would be a creative (not
1 of 3 $15108 7:04 PM
Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab Petition : ~ powered by iPeti... http:{{www.ipetitions.com{petition{stop catellus,~grab of islandhigh...
just a parks recreationally oriented #aali~ that could help keep kids off the street. Further, we
need to get our Leaders to simply'ttjck the rascals out ...Catellus and Warmington, etal. Leis
just say No...not just to the current proposal, but to others that will surely be upon us before we
can wink.....
14 Emerson
Brown
15 Emerson
Brown
16 Deborah
overfield
f7 Cybelle
Kelley-Whitley
18 Anonymous
19 David Kirwin
~ Babble V. l am gratefi.rf t4 be able to sign this petitiarr since 1 have felt strongly for many years that high
Certturian density, law income housing is not benefraal for anyone.
21 Anda Batkis '~ apartment complex does not belong inthat neigf7barhood-way too dense - will overcrowd
present school.
~ Sheila Leonard Far all of the above reasons, I do not support this 36-unit project at Ease Avenue and Everett.
Sheila Leonard
~ lifoei Uv,
Folsom Thy development should be rejected out of handl
24 Nancy A Hird
Low and very Ivw income housing should not be lumped together in a big apartment complex;
they should be muted with other housing of all income levels. Developers who are malting al! the
?~ Patr Payne money should be forced to supply housing ~ the development they are bu~~ing, not farce it onto
other residential areas. Thy is incredibly wrong and l think all of Alameda should scream about
it. I am thoroughly drsgusted with same ofthe decisions the planning board is malting and coungf
seems to be condoning. I hue in Alameda, but not in the neighborhood in question.
26 Jean Sweeney ~ un~s on less than an aae of land ~ #oo dense. Please do not approve this project. Surety a
beer plan would serve the teachers and the communrty, pease reconsider their proposal.
~T Dorothy Reid
28 Katie Smith
~ Eugerrie
Thomson
30 Claire Risley
31 I~sa t9o#kom
~ Monica Pena
~ Patrida M. This projec# is inapaprapriate to the site. The City and the Board of Edut~an should develop a
Gannon fan whfd~ would be in keeprng wrth the nathre of the nerghborhaad.These Karnes should be
toted where they were ortg~nally intended, at the Grand Street Maone.
34 Susan Chung
3~ Alex Hau
~ ken lot
~T Anonymous
Ads ey Cyoogk
2 of 3 New Homes-Alameda PM
~.
Help Stop Another Catelius Land Grab Petition : ~ powered by iPeti... http:Ilwww.ipet~tions.comlpetitionlstop_cateilus,~grab of islandhigh...
38 Anonymous
39 Anonymous
Low-income homes rxw~exd into a new development benefit the cammun~y and are the intent of
40 John McNulty such requirements, Lets keep i# that way for the benefit of all the residerr~ of the new
development,
41 Gene Calhoun
4~ Dora Calhoun
Markus The lndusionary Housing Initiative was created to AVQID high densi~ low income pausing
~ Roskothen complexes. We have Teamed from our mistakes but Catelius and the cityy government of
Alameda think otherwise.
~ Natti & Debbie
Elsibai vVe like our litfle town...
45 Robert Risley I can not think of a worse place to shoe-horn in 36 unit,
~ Roberta
Bernardi
4T Mary S. Hogan
A8 Matthew Gross
4g Anonymous
~ Arm Quarles
Dear Members of the Planning Board, City Counal, and Board of Education, My husband and I
are new residents in Alameda.lNe just bought a house here, an Gould Ct. , in April. Qne of the
think that made us deade to live here was that we Est loved how integrated Ala meda is, bath
ethnicallylraaally aswell as by incomelevel, And from talking to Alameda residents, we were
fed to understand that some of the areas in Alameda which have been trad'~ionafly poor are
changing bo reflect a variety of income levels. The proposal for the 3fi bw income unit to be built
a~ in one place is not in character with the Alameda that brought us here. l have been low income
myself in the past, and one of my bes# friends Nves in public housing, so I am completely
supportive of building adequate affordable housing, both in my own neighborhood and in other
neighbahaods. But this ghettai~ng of faw~ncame people alltntoone small area is unfair to them
as well as to their neighbors. It is also unfair to the residents of Grand Marina and future
developments, to be denied the land of dversity and richness that cameswith amulti-faceted
community. Vve don't want Alameda to be a loosely farmed amalgam of prejudiced, restricted
neighborhoods surrounded by slums. Please enforce the lnclusianary Housing initiative and keep
warmingtonlCatelluscrnd all developers within the law that your vafiers passed. Sincerely, Mary
S. Hagan
With the school capaaty issues we are having on this part of the island, ~ am baffled how the
school cflstrict might consider this a good idea. Do we really need more housing on this end of the
island? l would love for this to be a Park or other public property for the communrty that is
akeady here.
~ignature~ ~ dotal: ~~
Page .,_,<".~.~rst. #~_~~.prev... 2~. ~..riex~~>_.i..fasf_»~:i
3 0~` 3 515108 7:04 PM
Help Stop Another Catellu~ Land Grab Pet~t~an : ~ powered by iPet~... http:llwww.ipet~t~ons.eomlpet~t~onlstop cate~~us_grab~,ot_is~andhrtgh...
Powered by iRetitions -start your online p~
Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab
petition text signatures email fiends
Arterra Homes for Sale
L~1=D Designed Flag & Townhomes Fn A San
Francisco Highrise Community!
~l~~a~l~i-~S ~ ~Q~~~: ~~
# Name Comments
~~ Anonymous
l,aw ~ncvme Housing
Fnd had & law incame housing at Lacal.cam.
Search listings here.
~~ ~y G~o~~e
Pa e ; ~< ~fi~rst 1 ~ ,rev ;,~...1 ~ 2 'next.? ; fast » ,_~
5~ Janice miles l has lived in the 250Q bbck of Eagle f+or the past 16years. I amapposed tabuilding a 3-story, 36 unit
rental complex.
53 Anonymous
84 Kelly Fang
~ Mary Tigh
5fi Anonymous This letter says ti a11. Please reconsider downsi~ng this expansion! Thank you.
Thomas
~ Hunt
The city council is acting in a fecldess and irresponsible manner during an economic depression.
Elisabeth The aty canna! does nut seem to rea~ze that its duty is th make dec~ians that benefit the atizens of
~ Eliassen Alameda, opting instead to deade to benefit developers. This seems to me to show utter lack of
judgement and firscal respan~bil~y, indicating that the city counal should be recalled.
99 erik tell
1}Low incame housing is essential but Alameda should be progressive enough to insist an
mixed-income-level hauling. Lessening the chance of aeating mini-"prajeds." The objec~ve should
be to introduce law into mid, mid into high, etc. Apartments in two buildings immediately aaoss the
street on Eagle and Everett ga from as low as $~ per month to a maximum of $8~. Dn the same
block, additional low rents are in place. Cne block away, on Eagle and Broadway, another low rent
complex is available. Mare is inappropriate for this neighborhood; it ~ expe~ent far developers. 2}
The 24t)D block of Eagle and surrounding streets is l~iown for horrendous parking during the day. 36
new unit would magnify an already terrible problem. 3} The inaease in density is tau severe and
out of character far the neighborhood. The areas immediately aaoss the street are zoned residential
neighborhood; again, out of character. 4~ if these unit are expected th have a typical level of
~ Andres ~ children, the traffic on the 24Q0 black of Eagle and 1EOg black of Everett is pretty heavy durkig the
alveira ~y due to the automobile rested businesses an the surrauncting streets of Park, Buena Yisth and
Clement, malting it pretty dangerous. Additionatly, the additional traffic of 3G unit would add to that
danger for existing children. 5} if this additional density causes a school redistricting of the
neighborhood from Eason to Haight, along with ad~lianal density, it would negatively affect properly
values. On top of the current recession this would unfairly single-out local property owners. 6} Many
people who lice in the area now da much oftheir grocery shopping at Safeway and Lucky, one to
three miles away because the lacat stares are too expensive. How would this be useful #a
low=incame families? 7} The city's own planning commission just one week ago plate July} had na
idea of the pertinent components of this project. They expressed shack to their staff that they ddn't
Imaw anything about this. How can the City Gourial approve anything chat its awn Planninc
Commission is surprised about? 8}The benefit of this project seems entirely on the side of
developers, nut even of those who purportedly would benefit from the housing. Approval of this
1 of ~ 815108 7:04 PM
Help Stag Another Catellus Land Grab Petition : ~ powered by iPeti... hl:tp:{{www.ipetitions.com{petitionlstop cate~lus,~rab o~ is~andhigh...
project would bring into question the camps#ence of any public council ar board vrilling to approve it.
If i# is the purpose of the city's officers and elected representatives to aeateactivism inthe local
electorate and a new voting block that vn~l ttrm iCs eyes on city representatives with deaf ears, they
may succeed better than they would hope with approval of this project.
~~ Steven
Gersfle
~2 Anonymous
fi3 ~~ Jamm~g all low income housing into one dense space is a terrible idea. Sort of like a Ghe#to!l!
Hanson
~ Neal
Jarecki
~ Nea1
Jarecki
~ Virginia
Thamnpson
Any devefapertha#wants to aam that manly units infix suet a small lot does not have Alameda in
their best interest! Their just making this neighborhood a dumping ground just because they found a
way to get away with it. Why are they are so intent on this new direcfian??'?Why are they not
keeping with the original plan of building such a projec#attheir original location with in their lithe
~ Kevin gated community development??? This all speak volumes, My vision would be a litde urban
Frederick rearranging far the Island High school site. There are same nice homes that are surrounded by
communal buildings in near by blocks and it would be great to see a neighborhood restored by
moving these ~olated historic houses to a lot Pike this thus restoring this neighborhood back to a
normal Alameda residential neighborhood. If only the city had great idea like that ??? That's an
Alamedan idea not developer idea!!!
~8 Anonymous
~ Gretchen
Finer
7Q Lon Elledge
l1 Jenny
Curtis
Whal°s the definition of confusion? A Cify caunal that builds an upscale markeiptace~Alameda
Deny Marke~lace~; allows the opening of various new trendy restauranth along Park Streets opens a new
M upscale supermarket tNobHill}, then wants to build housing far 150 individuals that can't afford any
Torres of the services around them. The lndusianary Hauling Initiative is Iaw...fallow it and keep inline with
your prior deasions far this area.
,~ John
Watlans
7'4 Anonymous
?~ Marianne Wameda resident far Syears - in the past two years we are becoming more concerned about what
Carter o~iaals are dorng related to development. We are consrdertng moving to Morgan Hail - please da not
allow this develapmerrt of 3fi units -too large
Warmington Homes should honor its commitment to include low income housing in the Grand
~ Patrida M. Marina devebpment. building 3G apar#ments on less than one acre dearly violates Measure A and
Cannon is totally inappropriate far an already crowded area. Please hold Wam~ingtan to its prior
commitmen# to build law income homes on the Grand Marina area.
I'm baffled th think that anyone of any intelligence finds this a feasible plan. Has anyone an the
~ Kelly planning board or the city caunal actually come out to visit the proposed site. You would
Olveira imrnecGately see that such a structure could not possiblyt benefit ANYONE, other than the
developers. I strongly oppose this proposal.
Molly Building such a huge structure in such a small area is really not smart. DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO
~ Peters HAPPEN ! ll
aa~ ~y Googte
~ o#~ ~ Mission bay real estate PM
Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab Petition : ~ powered by iPeti... http:llwww.ipetitions.comlpetitionlstap catellus~rab or~islandhigh...
19 Poor People
Crime Move them to Qakland please.
~D Anonymous We certainly have enough law income housing please try somewhere else
81 Josh Libby
8~ Josh Libby
~ I~~ ubby
84 Tony Chung
~ Virginia
Thompson
~ Nick
Tzvetkov
87 Vali Ebert Please consider building senior housing on that site. Would maintain some level of density, but with
feuver impacts th a site that size.
~ Elko We donut need anymore Iow income housing in Alameda. The already law income housing here has
Ruppert ruined the neighborhood. Dank ruin Park Street as welll
~~~ I live aaoss the street cram the aid island High Schaal, and I'm stron~y opposed to this. Using this
~ ~Iveira area to dump alt the low income housing so other complexes can be nothing but high-income tenants
is wrong. A healthy mix of law and high-rent apartments is muds more fair to everyone involved.
Signatures ~ Tata1; ~~ Page _~~~~~st~`.,~~prev _._i _ Z next ~ _last„»_~.
We oUject to the proposal to destroy the fabric of an old and long established
neighborhood in the city of Alameda by cramming multiple low income apartments in an
area already saturated with multiple dwelling homes.
T11e essence of Measure A is to reduce tl~e overcrowding that leads to a di~~~i~lished
quality of life for established residents. Although this project is exempt from Measure A,
it should be the role of the Planning Committee to try to represent the needs and desires
of the current citize~ls of Alameda by meeting the spirit of Measure A. That means you
should ~1ot try to proliferate multiple occupancy dwellings in a~1 area unable to absorb the
overcrowding it produces without a significant decrease in the quality of life for its
current ' ' .~5h~ r even considering such a proposal.
~u~• neighborhood is already overcrowded with parking. Qn our block, we had one rental
duplex with $ cars and another single family rental home with 5 cars parked on the street.
Those 13 cars took up over half the parking on our entire block. Every time we pulled our
car out to ga to the store or on some other errand, our vacated parking space would be
im~~~ediately filled. This is a result of poor planni~~g on the part of the city by failing to
ensure there are adequate parking spaces available for multiple occupancy residences. It
is like living in San Francisco where every parking space is at a premium, we pay
$5000.00 a year in property taxes and still can't park in front of our own home.
I do not believe it is in keeping with the spirit of the law to allow a developer to build up-
scalehouses in one area and then put the less desirable low income housing in another
area in order to keep froin lowing tl~e value of tl~e new housing. If you are going to
approve a new development, then require the concomitant low income housing to be built
in tl~e sa~r~e development. ~thcrwise don't approve the new development in the first
place.
?If you are so intent on building housing on tl~e Island School site, why don't you allow
the developer to build market rate si~igle family homes on the Island School property and
locate the affordable housing in the new development as the law intended?
?Another alternative, If you really believe it is ethical to divorce the low income housing
from the new development and foist it upon an established neighborhood, why don't you
move it to Harbor Bay where there is plenty of available land and parking space`?
Finally, my wife and I, as well as many of our neighbors walk past the Island School site
at night on our way to and from Park Street restaurants or the theater. I don't believe we
would be able to do that aa~ymore if there are dozens of youth living in an overcrowded
space with nothing to do but hang around the streets at night. We already have seen an
increase on Park Street of groups of youth loLtering around with nothing to do. we do not
want to exacerbate an already troublesome trend.
r
~v
~v
~=
~" 4
J ~ '
~~ ~
L v
Y~ ~
~+ ~
~ ~- ~
~~ ~
~~~~
~o~~
~~~Q
s~o~..
v~o E~
~_~~~ ~
Comments to CIG
August 5, 2008
I strongly appose the AfTardable Housing Agreement with ~varmingtan as completely inanui•a~priate. It should
be sent back to staff, reconsidered in light of the Noah of Lincoln area lan and resubmitted after
p m.o~ e
community input. A project of this size will damage one of the oldest neighborhoods in the ci a.nd will
be incompatible with the exciting changes planned for the North of Lincoln "gatewa ".
y
1 Vll~VVL tV ~1L.LrJ ~J1V~.JV-]L[~l fVl LhV f~Yil~lrYJ1.tLL~ XeIRhJVALA7.
1} Parking in the area is alt•eady tight bath because of residents and Park Street corridor businesses. Ifthe
project warmingtan wants i s built, when the North of Linc aln gateway is realized parkin in the are a will
g
be impossible.
?}The proposed project is too dense. 3~ units on this site equals 40 unitslacre. At the former Harbor Island
apartments an Buena vista, there are only 30 units per acre, and problems with crime in that area previousl are
y
well known to you. There is no reason to recreate that in the center of the North afLincaln Plan area.
3~ ~'ancentrating low and very law income housing in one place is discriminatory, and contra to the ci 's
. ~ tY
Inclusiana~~ Housing Initiative. Law income units should be mixed in to developments for the benefit oftheir
own residents and the city as a whale, as the IHI intended. The Del Monte building will sawn become a
shopping area, so the argument that Island High provides access to amenities that brand IITa.rina will not is
invalid.
4} A development of this size will make the existing overcapacity at Edison School even worse.
why is this sweetheart deal far a developer being rushed through`? why haven't you even asked for the
neighborhood's views on this agreement? ~vhy does the city solicit our views an a bathroom remodel on
Everett St but not this imp-or~nt agreement? Since this deal appears to actually decrease the number of
affordable housing units available to the city, what is the benefit to city residents`
Send this agreement back to staff for a revision that strictly limits the number of units to son~ethin befittin the
ii ii i ry r {~ g g
riF~ift•Y1~1llY'YllZl1l~' ~ ~ ~'n 1 ! tlt'li~'p Tl~i' Q Y1'11V !1T f11f'!li'1'1P ~?~TFx~p n;arllPr n!~(`llni~r~ aria r~nf~~a ~ pttarrr~pt a r-~'r~1~r+t
1lVX~iILJVilLV~l{~. 1V 1.k1 ll.r 4ilL1L-7 1Vl Li 1111Ly 1 1XLVV1ILV iV YV1FJ, VrYlLVi lIVV4i~liV~.i lLllli 1V11L1a1k7. J. ti74L~~V~.74 L; ~JiIfJVV4
far seniors: that would still provide badly needed housing, but would reduce or eliminate the im act an bath
p
Edison School and parking.
I urge you to accept the Planning Board's Recommendation #2 and equate} `consider maintainin a mix of...
utv.~s a:~ ~~ne ~xran~ lv~arina sire anu prvv~uing a m~~x Ux ... ~unii~ ~t ih~ ~xi-sii~ i~cati~n iri~t~ad ~f ih~ i~urr~nt
proposal...for the purpose ofmaximizing the diversity afincame levels in all housing devela menu.'
p
,r
Thank you,
Jose
508 Eagle Ave
Submitted by Joseph Yon at
the DS-05-48 Joint CounciilClC
meeting
Re: Agenda Item #3-A
My husband and I have been Alameda residents for 18 years. We live on the 2500
block of Eagle, Astones-throw from the old Island High site.
strongly oppose the scale of the project proposed for this site.
No one neighborhood should be expected to absorb this.
would like an HONEST answer as to why no low income, high density rental units
are to be included in the EXCLUSIVE Grand Marina Development and why, instead
they are all going to be lumped together on the Island High site.
Who benefits from this?
(t think we all know the HONEST answer.)
would like to remind everyone that whatever is built on this site is going to be in
the heart of the proposed GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT.
suggest that no more than 10 dwellings for a mix of incomes be built on this site. It
should include off street parking and a realistic space for children and their families
to play.
Thank u
Sally Yon
2508 Eagle Ave
August 5, 2008
Mayor Johnson and City Council:
My name is Janice Miles and I own a home at 2514 Eagle Avenue, '/2 a block from Island
High School. I have lived there for 17 years.
I am opposed to the building ofthe proposed 36-unit very-low and low income rental
complex at Island High for various reasons.
1. The very-low and low income should not be concentrated in such a dense
area. New developments should be inclusionary and contain all income
levels. I feel there should not have been a "trade-off" to move very-low and
low income out of one project ~Crrand Marina} and "dumped" into another
area. Very-low and low income housing should be spread out and integrated
through various areas.
2. Any new building at the Island High site should give people the opportunity to
purchase and be homeowners rather than just all rentals in one concentrated
small spot.
3. I believe in Measure A. Increased density would decrease the standard of
living for those already in the area. 36-units are just too many regardless of
the mix of income levels. Ex. Parking, open space.
4. The Eagle Avenue area is very historic and one of the oldest areas in our city.
It has many of the oldest homes in the city dating from the 1860's. As a
result, any new building should visually blend with the existing historic homes
in that area.
5. Eagle Avenue already has a challenging parking situation since many of the
historic homes do not have garages or drive-ways, A 36-unit complex would
make this difficult parking situation nearly impossible.
During the 17 years I have lived at 2514 Eagle, the neighborhood has greatly improved.
Many of the historic homes have been restored and are better cared for. There is a greater
level of pride of ownership, a closeness of neighbors, arld overall improvement, I, as
well as many of my neighbors, feel that a 36-unit complex would significantly set back
the positive changes that have been made.
I am not against all development at Island High. Ifavor awell-thought out plan, This
would include a mix of income levels, encouraging homeownership and rentals, in a
density no greater than Measure A.
Thank you,
Janice Miles _ f
~ ~ ~ _~
Submitted by Doree Miles at
the 48-45-08 Joint CouncillClC
meeting
Re: Agenda Item #3-A
CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY
1017 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
August 5, 2008
T0: Mayor and City CounciUCommunity Improvement Commission
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Agreement for Island High School site
I have the following recommendations:
1. Defer action on the Affordable Housing Agreement until after the Park Street
North of Lincoln Strategic Plan is adopted. The Plan will help determine
appropriate development for the Island High School site and the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. Ask staff to describe the approval process to obtain a Guyton exemptian that
would allow the number of units on the site to exceed the maximum of 1 S
permitted by Measure A.
3. If the CouncillCommissiondecides to approve the agreement tonight, change the
agreement so that the 36 unit maximum is replaced with a Measure A compliant
number. I believe that neighboring residents are requesting a maximum of 10-12
units.
4. Since the School District will continue to own the land, ask staff to determine
whether the district could assert its "superagency" status to claim exemption from
City rules, including Measure A, the zoning ordinance and design review,
o If the District could assert such status, add provisions to the Affordable
Housing Agreement to require that the project conform with the City
Charter and Zoning Ordinance, including design review. Section 3.SF of
the proposed Agreement only requires that the "Developer shall have
secured all necessary emphasis added} discretionary and other
governmental agency permits...". If the project is exempt from such
permits, then the permits are not "necessary".
5. Ask staff to describe at what point environmental review will occur for
development on the Island High School site. The environmental review section of
the staff report that concludes that no further environmental review is required
only addresses the amendment to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan and not
development at Island High School.
Submitted by Christopher
Buckley at the 08-05-08 Joint
CouncillClC meeting
Re: Agenda Item #3-A