Resolution 14496ve as to F r
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOL UTION NO.
4 4 4) 6
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY THE
BOATWORKS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND
DESIGN REVIEW (PLNO8-0160)
WHEREAS, Robert McGillis and Phillip Banta of Banta Associates
( "applicants ") submitted an application, on behalf of the property owner, Francis
Collins, requesting approval of a Zoning Code Amendment, Planned Development
Permit, and Design Review to construct 242 residential units, and a small boat
marina on an approximately 9.5 -acre site consisting of two (2) parcels located at
2229 -2235 Clement Avenue (the "Proposed Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project site is within the Specified Mixed Use -5
(MU -5) General Plan designation; and
WHEREAS, approximately 4.48 acres of the site are located within the M -2,
General Industrial (Manufacturing) Zoning District and approximately 5 acres of the
site are located in the R -2 /PD, Two - Family Residence /Planned Development
Combining Zoning Districts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA "), Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq., analyzing the significant effects on the
environment of the Proposed Project and alternatives to the Proposed Project as
required by CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the alternatives to the Proposed Project analyzed in the FIR
include a Reduced Density Alternative consisting of approximately 175 residential
units, internal circulation roadways and pedestrian paths, a small boat marina, and
a wider waterfront esplanade than the Proposed Project, including two acres of
public open space; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of the 242 -unit Proposed Project in the EIR
concludes that the Proposed Project would result in specific adverse impacts on
public health and safety as described in the staff report and in the findings below;
WHEREAS, the FIR for the project concludes that the 242-unit Proposed
Project would result in significant unavoidable adverse effects on the environment
( "significant unavoidable impacts "), which include significant unavoidable impacts
on air quality, significant unavoidable contributions to climate change, and
significant unavoidable impacts on pedestrian and vehicular transportation and
circulation, and
WHEREAS, the ElR concludes that certain significant unavoidable impacts
of the Proposed Project could be substantially reduced, avoided or lessened by
the Reduced Density Alternative; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2010, the City of Alameda Planning Board held a
public hearing on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2010, the City of Alameda Planning Board held a
public hearing on the proposed project and the reduced density alternative; and
WHEREAS, at public hearings on April 26, 2009 and May 24, 2010, Mr.
Banta addressed the Planning Board and stated that Mr. Banta and Mr. Collins
believed that a reduced density alternative of approximately 175 to 179 residential
units, with two acres of open space, is a feasible alternative that could meet the
project objectives; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2010, Mr. Banta presented to the Planning Board
and the Alameda community a proposal by Mr. Collins for a reduced density
alternative of 179 residential units and two acres of public open space; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2010, Mr. Banta presented a revised reduced
density alternative acceptable to the property owner which included 182 residential
units and two acres of open space and the Planning Board's requested changes to
the roadway network;
WHEREAS, CEQA allows the City of Alameda to reject a proposed project,
especially if a feasible alternative is available that meets all of the basic project
objectives; and
WHEREAS, the property owner, the applicants, and City staff have been
working cooperatively over the last two years to develop a feasible alternative to
the 242 -unit Proposed Project that would meet the project objectives and reduce
the adverse impacts associated with the 242 -unit proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on
June 21, 2010, and has examined the administrative record of the proceedings,
including but not limited to pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the Final EIR and has found that
the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and that a reduced density
alternative would reduce the severity of several significant unavoidable impacts,
that a reduced density alternative is feasible, and that a reduced density
alternative would meet the basic project objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed and recommended to the City
Council a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment that support
redevelopment of the site with a reduced density alternative; and
2
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held public hearings on April 26, 2010, May
24, 2010, June 21, 2010, and on July 15, 2010 to review the project application
(PLN08 -160) and the design of a reduced density alternative; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2010 the Planning Board unanimously denied
proposed Planned Development and Design Review (PLNO8- 0160); and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal code provides that decisions by the
Planning Board may be appealed within 10 days of the date of a Planning Board
decision; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Greg Harper of Harper and Associates filed an appeal on
July 21, 2010 appealing the Planning Board's action to deny the project; and
WHEREAS, this Council held a de novo public hearing on the proposed
project at which all materials submitted and all comments made by all parties,
including staff, regarding this application were considered; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has madethefollowingfindingswith respect to
the use permit application:
Environmental Impact: The Proposed Project (PLN08 -0160) would result in
significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated or reduced to a
less -than- significant level without a reduction in the density of the project.
The Proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts to
transportation, air quality, climate change, and historic resources.
2. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: The Proposed Project would result in
significant unavoidable impacts to pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
circulation. As described in the EIR, the Proposed Project would result in
potential impacts to pedestrians and increased delays for pedestrian
crossings. Requiring pedestrians to wait for extended periods to cross a
street could result in pedestrians crossing streets without the benefit of stop
lights (jaywalking), which can result in pedestrian /vehicular collisions. The
reduced density alternative would reduce contributions to these traffic and
circulation impacts, because it would generate less vehicular traffic which
would reduce the conflict with pedestrians (see impact 4.B -8).
3. Air Quality and Climate Change: The Proposed Project, with its inadequate
circulation pattern and poor integration into the existing street grid, as well
as the number of dwelling units, would result in an increase in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) that would be greater than the rate of increase in
population, which would be inconsistent with the Association of Ba y Area
Governments (ABAG) Climate Action Plan. While the same is true for the
reduced density alternative, the difference between increased VMT and
3
increased population would be reduced. With the foreseeable addition of
future development in the vicinity, in conjunction with past and present
development, the Proposed Project would result in significant cumulative air
quality impacts and would make a significant contribution to cumulative
global climate change. The reduced density alternative would reduce
contributions to air quality impacts and global climate change, because it
would generate less traffic and associated emissions of air pollutants.
4. Reduced Density Alternative: The EIR identified a "reduced density
alternative," which would substantially reduce, avoid, or lessen the severity
of the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts: Impact
4.B -8 (Addition of Project Generated Traffic) would be reduced from
significant and unavoidable to less - than - significant with implementation of
mitigation identified in the EIR; Impact 4.B -10 (Traffic at Park Street and
Clement Avenue Under Cumulative Baseline Conditions) would be reduced
from significant and unavoidable to less- than - significant with
implementation of mitigation identified in the EIR; and Impact 4.B -18
(Cumulative Traffic on Park Street at the Park Street Bridge) would be
reduced from significant and unavoidable to less - than - significant. The
reduced density alternative would reduce contributions to the following
biological resources and water quality impacts because it does not involve
constructing a marina in the Oakland Estuary, as does the Proposed
Project: Impact 4.F -1 (Possible Take of Protected Birds or Their Nests);
Impact 4.F-4 (Impacts to Special Status Fish Species), Impact 4.F-5
(Possible Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands). As evidenced
by the work completed over the last two years with the applicants and
owner, a reduced density alternative is clearly feasible and will meet the
basic project objectives. As CEQA expressly acknowledges, the City as
lead agency may deny the Proposed Project in favor of a feasible,
environmentally superior alternative that also meets the basic project
objectives (see, e.g., Public Resources Code sections 21001, 21002.1(b),
21004).
5. Site Plan Design and Emergency Vehicle Access: The Proposed Project is
organized around an internal circular alley "loop" system. The Proposed
Project's proposed internal circulation system is a circular internal lane
system that could be easily blocked by an abandoned vehicle or illegally
parked vehicle. The internal alley is designed with a 20 -foot cross section
and only two ways in and out. Given the narrow width of the alley system,
in order to enable cars and/or emergency vehicles to move through the
development no parking would be allowed on the alley "loop" or on either of
the two north /south internal alleys within the "loop." If a vehicle is p arked
illegally or abandoned on any leg of the loop, that leg would be effectively
impassible. In the event that the entrance on Clement Avenue and the
entrance on Blanding Way were blocked, no emergency vehicles, fire
trucks, or ambulances would be able to access the majority of the 242 units
4
in the development, which could result in loss of life or personal safety.
Likewise, in the event of a major fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster,
disabled or abandoned cars could easily block the internal "loop" circulation
system. If cars are abandoned on the internal system, emergency access
and fire truck access to the certain homes could be blocked, which could
result in the loss of life. The Proposed Project could result in significant
adverse impacts to the public health safety and welfare. There is no
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid these impacts without
rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate- income
households.
6. Fire Safety: The project design could result in health and safety impacts in
the event of a fire. The internal circulation system is in conflict with the
California Fire Code (CFC). The CFC requires a fire lane of 26 feet when
buildings exceed 30 feet in height. A fire lane must be provided in the
immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height. At least one of the required access routes meeting
this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572 mm) and a
maximum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be positioned
parallel to one entire side of the building. The proposed project proposes
internal alleys for fire apparatus access that have a clear distance of 20 feet
across. The buildings are three story buildings and exceed 30 feet in height.
The substandard fire access lanes could result in the loss of life in the
event of a fire. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid this impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-
and moderate - income households.
T Open Space Design and Public Safety: The open space areas and long
narrow internal pedestrian corridors in the Proposed Project are
inaccessible to emergency or security /police vehicles. The Alameda Police
department will not be able to effectively patrol the internal "paseo" areas or
the public waterfront path. The alley system effectively blocks the p police
department's ability to patrol the area visually from a patrol car. The
Proposed Project contains a five -foot public path along the waterfront that
is completely obscured from public view, as described above Pedestrians
on the waterfront path will be completely obscured from public view b y a
police patrol car. The proposed five -foot width does not meet the
requirements for a Bay Trail, nor does the open space meet the
requirements of the Bay Plan as administered by the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission. Although the plans show a variet y of other
improvements between the path and the water's edge, those improvements
are not on property owned by the applicant and the applicant has no means
or ability to construct the improvements. The lands are owned by the
United States Army Corp of Engineers, which has neither approved the
plans nor approved submittal of an application to construct improvements
5
on the lands. Currently, these lands are in a very dangerous condition and
are off limits to the public. The current proposal to place the public
adjacent to these dangerous conditions would result in significant safety
hazards to the public.
8. Architectural Design: The plan proposes 242 single family homes.
Although the homes would vary in size (Le., in the amount of floor area), all
242 homes would be three stories in height with almost identical
architectural design, identical roof design and identical architectural
features. The Proposed Project exhibits almost no architectural design
variation, which will result in a visually unappealing project for both visitors
and potential buyers.
9. Parking Design: The Proposed Project includes 392 parking spaces, or 1.6
spaces per unit, and 51 communal, uncovered "guest" parking spaces for a
total of 443 spaces. Of the 51 "guest" parking spaces, 15 cannot be
accessed without the neighboring property granting an access easement.
No such easement has been granted. No parking is provided for the
proposed open space.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Project will result in significant
unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that an alternative project - the reduced
density alternative -- is a feasible alternative that meets the basic project objectives
and will reduce the impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the substance of the appeal, the
record of proceedings and the responses to the appeal included in the staff report
and the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Board and denies
proposed Planned Development and Design Review (PLNO8-0160).
* * * * * * * *
8
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda during the Regular
Meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of October, 2010, by the followin g vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this 6th day of October, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, Cit
City of Alameda