2000-09-05 Special CIC CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 - - 7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Appezzato convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30
p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson led the Pledge of
Allegiance. Reverend Myong Bae Choi, Alameda Korean Presbyterian
Church, gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL -
MINUTES
Present: Councilmember/Commissioners Daysog,
DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Chair Appezzato
- 5.
[Note: Councilmember/Commissioner DeWitt arrived at
7:33 p.m.]
Absent: None.
(CC 00-482) (CIC 00-39) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community Improvement Commission Meeting of August 15, 2000.
Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner Kerr moved approval of the Minutes.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which
carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog, Johnson, Kerr and Chair
Appezzato - 4. Absent: Councilmember/Commissioner DeWitt - 1.
,AGENDA ITEM:
A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS HERETO ATTACHED AND MADE PART
OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. (ATTACHMENT A)
(CC 00-483) (CIC 00-40) Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission Public Hearing to consider adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (a Finding of No Significant Impact
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as mitigated),
a General Plan Amendment and an amendment to the Community
Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement
District to change the land use designation from General Industry
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2000
to Medium Density Residential, and to incorporate text amendments
that reflect the recent elimination of port priority designation
for this site, a Rezoning from M-2 (General Industrial) to R-4-PD,
(Neighborhood Residential, Special Planned Development Combining
District) for a proposed development consisting of 127 detached
homes and 24 attached homes on 151 lots, for a total of 151 homes
and related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking on
20.52 acres. The site is located north of Buena Vista Avenue
between Entrance Road and Hibbard Street and currently contains an
industrial building formerly occupied by Weyerhaeuser, the Chipman
Moving Warehouse and food storage tanks along the edge of the
Estuary. The subject property is 23.82 acres, so there will be a
3.3-acre remainder parcel following a former rail corridor, north
of the Del Monte warehouse along Buena Vista Avenue between
Entrance Road and Sherman Street. Applicant: Kaufman and Broad.
(CC 00-484) (CIC 00-41) Recommendation from the Economic
Development Commission regarding approval of the Amendment of the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the Amendment of
the General Plan from General Industry to Medium Density
Residential for the Proposed Marina Cove Project.
(CC 00-485) (CIC 00-42) Supplemental Report from the Planning
Director providing draft legislation for Mitigated Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
Mayor/Chair Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing.
The following public speakers addressed the City Council/
Commission:
PROPONENTS
Ray Panek, Kaufman & Broad, Applicant;
Rich Newman, Alameda;
Michael Allen, Alameda;
Frank Matarrese, Economic Development Commission;
Jerry Sherman, Park Street Business Association;
Ellen Lohmeier, Alameda;
Vern and Beryl Beckwith, Alameda;
Derek Hill, Alameda;
Louise Hill, Alameda;
David Gonzaleh, Alameda;
Debra Ammivata, Alameda;
Robert Jensen, Alameda;
Dale Reno, Alameda;
Mark Ruckman, Fortman Marina;
Georg Oliver, Alameda;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2000
Hadi Monsef, Alameda;
Nick Cabral, Alameda;
Andrew McCormack, Alameda.
OPPONENTS
Stuart Rickard, Alameda;
Melissa Ehn, Buena Vista Avenue Neighbors (EVAN);
Clarice Olson, Alameda;
David Landau, BVAN;
Joseph Graceffo, Alameda;
Debra Arbuckle, Neighborhood Network;
Jon Spangler, Alameda Transit Advocates;
Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda;
Suzan Kaplan, Alameda;
Danai Lamb, Alameda;
Mark Irons, Alameda;
Robert Rothrock, Alameda;
Douglas Holmes, BVAN;
David Thruston, Alameda;
Virginia Neuhoff, Alameda;
Irma Marin-Nolan, Alameda;
Jim Sweeney, Alameda;
Jean Sweeney, Alameda;
Michael J. Connors, Alameda.
NEUTRAL
Angus McDonald, Alameda;
Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope;
Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope;
Richard Neveln, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Appezzato closed the
public portion of the Hearing.
***
Mayor/Chair Appezzato called a recess at 9:16 p.m. and reconvened
the Special Joint Meeting at 9:30 p.m.
* * *
(CC 00-486) Resolution No, 13268, "Adopting a •Mitigated Negative
Declaration, IS-99-02, and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
General Plan Amendment GPA-99-01; an Amendment to the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project, Rezoning R-99-01; Planned
Development PD-99-01; and Tentative Map 7170, for Construction of
a 151 Unit Development." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2000
4
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson,
and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
(CC 00-487) Resolution No. 13269, "Approving a General Plan
Amendment GPA-99-1 for the Marina Cove Development to Change the
Land Use Designation from General Industry to Medium Density
Residential, and to Incorporate Text Amendments that Reflect the
Recent Elimination of Port Priority Designation for this Site."
Adopted.
Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(CIC 00-43) Resolution No. 00-93, "Adopting Findings of Fact
Regarding Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation
Monitoring Program; in Accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act for the Proposed Amendment to the Community Improvement
Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project."
Adopted.
Commissioner Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution.
Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson,
and Chair Appezzato - 4. Noes: Commissioner Kerr - 1.
(CC 00-488) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2559,
as Amended by Ordinance Nos. 2681 and 2835, and Approving and
Adopting the Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project to Change the Land Use
Designation from General Industry to Medium Density Residential.
Introduced.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(CC 00-489) Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning, R-99-1,
Reclassifying and Rezoning Property Located between Entrance Road
and Hibbard Street North of Buena Vista Avenue from M-2, (General
Industrial/Manufacturing Zoning District), to R-4-PD (Neighborhood
Residential with a Planned Development Combining Zoning District).
Introduced.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2000
Councilmember DeWitt moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson
and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Appezzato adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 10:29 p.m.
* * *
RECONVENED
(CC 00-490) (CIC 00-44) Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated
when design is considered, the Planning Board should pay attention
to: street lights, resisting cluster mail boxes, front landscaping,
expansion of the toddler park to older children, street trees, and
the placement of utility boxes.
Upon direction from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel, Councilmember/
Commissioner DeWitt moved that the Special Joint Meeting be
reconvened at 10:31 p.m. to enter into the record the
aforementioned comments by Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Appezzato re-adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 10:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
PenLe/
ane B. Felsch, CMC
City Clerk,
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2000
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 97
1 the Weyerhaeuser sight almost 5.5 million dollars will be
2 based on those homes at 2,000 square feet a home and
3 multiply it by or 20 times comes to about 5 and a half
4 million dollars to our schools, to build new schools at the
5 FISK sight, and to remodernize because it is all capital
6 money. We can probably modernize every school in our city.
7 That's a responsibility we need to address whether
8 we do it this way, or help the school district do it
9 another way. I challenge anyone here to tell me how to
10 raise 5.5 million for our schools without raising taxes.
11 And I don't suggest taxes, but responsible development is a
12 good way to get there. Affordable housing, what the State
13 mandates is 15 percent of all new homes built to be
14 affordable. Both developers have agreed to 20 percent, and
15 some of the money that will be used to develop the Kaufman
16 and Broad affordable housing homes comes from the
17 redevelopment area, but that's exactly what the money is
18 for. One out of every five new homes built will be
19 affordable, at least by the mandate of this state. Again,
20 I challenge anyone here to tell me how to build that number
21 of affordable new homes without responsible development,
22 and by not raising taxes.
23 Additionally, as we go forward with the development
24 of the Catellus the Senior Center will revert to the city
25 and be guaranteed for our seniors forever. Three of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 98
most critical areas in our community, and in the country:
education, affordable housing, and our seniors are being
addressed, maybe not as adequately as it should be, but at
least we're taking the first step -- education, our
schools, affordable housing, and our seniors. We begin to
address these three critical areas if we begin to take the
first steps, and we do so without raising taxes. We build
new and rehabilitate old schools. We build affordable
housing, and we acquire a senior center, and this is just
the beginning.
We have a city to run. I've outlined a framework,
but I think it may be a small vision for the future. Maybe
I'm the only one that believes it. Again, I believe to do
nothing is irresponsible. I choose to go forward taking
the action necessary to make this one of the best
communities in the east bay. I'll close and accept a
motion.
VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Mr. Mayor I'd like to
make a motion and I move to adopt, correct me if I'm wrong,
move to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (a Finding
of No Significant Impact pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act as mitigated), a General Plan
Amendment and an amendment to the Community Improvement
Plan for the Business and the Waterfront Business District
to change the land use designation from General Industry to
Page 99
1 Medium Density Residential, and to incorporate text
2 amendments that reflect the recent elimination of port
3 priority designation for this site, a Rezoning from M -2
4 (General Industrial) to R -4 -PD, (Neighborhood Residential,
5 Special Planned Development Combining District) for a
6 proposed development consisting of 127 detached homes and
7 24 attached homes on 151 lots, for a total of 151 homes and
8 related utilities, streets, open space, and visitor parking
9 on 20.52 acres.
10 COUNCILMEMBER KERB: Mr. Mayor, we have
11 three separate Resolutions and Ordinances. Could we do
12 them one by one, if Vice Mayor Daysog would agree to that?
13 You can move all three in succession. I would appreciate
14 it if we could do the three one by one.
15 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Certainly, out of
16 courtesy to Councilmember Kerr, sure.
17 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: First one is --
18 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: I move to -- whoever
19 wants to make the next motion, go ahead. For the first one
20 I move to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (a
21 Finding of No Significant Impact pursuant to the California
22 Environmental Quality Act as mitigated).
23 COUNCILMEMBER JOHSNON: Second.
24 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Any further discussion?
25 All in favor? Vote passes 4 -1.
Page 100
1 (Councilmember Kerr -- no)
2 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, I will
3 make a motion to adopt a resolution approving a General
4 Plan Amendment, GPA -99 -1 for the Marina Cove Development to
5 Change the Land Use Designation to Medium Density
6 Residential, and to Incorporate Text Amendments that
7 Reflect the Recent Elimination of Port Priority Designation
8 for this site. (For City Council action.)
9 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Second.
10 MAYOR APPEZZATO: We have a motion and a
11 second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Motion
12 passes 5 to 0. Next one.
13 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, I will
14 make a motion to approve a Resolution Adopting Findings of
15 Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures
16 and Mitigation Monitoring Programs; in Accordance with the
17 California Environmental Quality Act for the Proposed
18 Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the
19 Business and Waterfront Improvement project. And this is
20 for CIC action.
21 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Second.
22 MAYOR APPEZZATO: We have a motion and a
23 second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Motion
24 passes 4 -1. (Councilmember Kerr -- no)
25 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: I move introduction of
25 (Pages 97 to 100)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 93
1 I think we on the Council have to some degree be
2 visionaries and look to the future two, or three, or four,
3 or five years out to decide how we should to proceed
4 because raising taxes -- and we're not going to have these
5 good times forever -- raising taxes is not going to happen
6 any time soon.
7 I propose to move forward, hopefully, with a bright
8 vision for our future. We have currently two developments
9 being proposed. One before us tonight, the other the
10 Catellus Development will occur in the near future. And to
11 put it all in perspective, and kind of give you a general
12 view from how Pm looking at it, let me look at the base
13 first. We need to be reminded what we're doing out there
14 because it's all interelated because it's important, and
15 density and traffic are important to the picture of our
16 city.
17 We will acquire almost 2,000 acres from the Navy.
18 When the land is finely turned over we have plans, current
19 plans, to develop only 200 acres of that 2,000. The
20 Catellus Development, which is a mixed use development with
21 500 homes, this development will give us the revenue to
22 begin to redo the infrastructure out at the base. Any
23 further development beyond the 200 acres is probably light
24 years away. We haven't even discussed it yet. There will
25 be discussion next week whether we should go with a master
Page 94
1 developer or not.
2 Of the 2,000 acres -- you need to know this because
3 people talk about density and traffic, and you need to at
4 least hear it. If you don't agree with it that's fine, but
5 I need to say it. Of to 2,000 acres, 565 acres, 25 percent
6 of the dry land of the base if you include the wetlands,
7 900 acres -- so let's just say the dry land, 25 percent
8 will always be open space of fish and wildlife refuge,
9 25 percent of the land, about one -third of our city that is
10 being turned over to us. 200 acres is proposed to be a
11 golf course, 56 acres a sports complex. East Bay Regional
12 Park is going to build another park, a marina beach. We
13 have a historical district that will be preserved. 50 to
14 70 percent of the bases tidelands will be entrusted to the
15 people of the State of California. You cannot build
16 housing on tideland.
17 With this first Catellus Development of 200 acres
18 we will not overbuild, especially with housing. In fact,
19 if we build 500 new homes at east housing and the 152 homes
20 at the Weyerhaeuser site, the Kaufman and Broad project, we
21 will build only 652 homes. That is less homes than we
22 currently plan to tear down at the base. We plan to tear
23 down, if it goes forward, 600 homes and probably another
24 200 or 300 in west housing, but it will be more than 650.
25 If we tear down approximately 800 homes and we
Page 95
1 build 652, we will only have about 150 homes less than we
2 had 10 years ago. Building 652 homes on these two projects
3 will be less homes than we had 10 years ago when the Navy
4 owned the base. Additionally, we will be tearing down
5 homes in one location, the base, and building or spreading
6 them out in two additional locations. Housing density will
7 improve.
8 Let me make another point. Alameda's population is
9 down 8,000 to 10,000 from a few years ago. We'll know for
10 sure when the census comes out. We have a 1,000 vacant
11 homes right now. We lost 14,000 jobs, and have only
12 replaced 2,000 to date. Somehow population density, and
13 housing density, and traffic density must be significantly
14 less than it was 10 years ago. I'm not saying its not
15 going to get worse, and I'm not saying we shouldn't plan
16 for it, and we need to do that, but I think you need also
17 look at the facts.
18 Let's look at the Weyerhaeuser site real quickly.
19 The proposed development site is certainly a blight on our
20 city. It doesn't take a very intelligent Alamedian to go
21 stand on the corner and look at it. Some of us want to get
22 rid of heavy industry and the trucks, and I certainly agree
23 with that. That we do need to get rid of, that degree.
24 It's past its time, and the trucks need to go. And I'm
25 sure this Council and future Councils will work on getting
Page 96
1 rid of the trucks, and getting rid of the blighted area.
2 And we definitely want to get rid of those shipping
3 containers out there. I think that's the goal of the
4 Council, and probably the goal of future Councils.
5 Yet some don't want the obvious alternatives. We
6 are becoming a residential community. We always have been.
7 And some say a high -tech, bio -tech community. We're trying
8 to attract clean industries, and we're doing it pretty
9 successfully. And we need housing. We need good schools.
10 We need affordable housing, and responsible development
11 will get us there.
12 I said earlier that no one plans to raise revenue
13 by raising taxes. It won't work. However, we better be
14 creative and progressive if our community is to thrive. We
15 need money for our schools. We need affordable housing.
16 We need to take care of our seniors. These are three of
17 the most important issues in our community, but also three
18 of the most important issues that are on the front pages
19 all across this country.
20 And I propose that this Council is taking the first
21 step to deal with all three. The State of California
22 mandates that a $1.93 a square foot of every new home built
23 go to schools. Catellus and Kaufman and Broad have both
24 agreed to $4.20 a square foot supported by our school
25 district. If we build the 652 homes at east housing and
24 (Pages 93 to 96)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 89
1 fees and school facilities. But through the leadership,
2 really of the City, we reached an agreement with the school
3 district on the Catellus Project, which I'm sure helped in
4 the negotiations on the Kaufman and Broad project.
5 So this is not only going to be good for the things
6 that we've already mentioned, but also the schools. This
7 is going to help our school systems, and this will help us
8 build new school facilities. So I just wanted to make a
9 point of letting -- reminding people that that's also a
10 part of the deal.
11 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: I do want to make a
12 couple of further comments. As I said I do applaud Kaufman
13 and Broad in their initial plan of 15 percent to include
14 low- income housing as well as moderate income housing. But
15 because most people do only pay 9 percent moderate income
16 housing and inland fees -- but the increase from 15 to 20
17 percent, by the way, is proposed to be done with the
18 payment from the 20 percent set aside that's being
19 generated by the Business Waterfront Improvement Project.
20 So, in other words, the increase of 5 percent would be paid
21 for by public money. I think I should mention that.
22 I also forgot to praise Mr. McDonald's proposal for
23 the dock at the waterfront. Having cruised on my sailboat
24 for four years around the Gulf of Mexico, these docks are
25 invaluable. And I think that's a great idea.
Page 90
1 We've been talking about private property rights
2 tonight. One thing that should be mentioned is that the
3 only ownership by Kaufman and Broad so far is, at least as
4 of Friday, was the Weyerhaeuser property. They, as of
5 Friday, do not own the Chipman warehouse. And the Chipman
6 warehouse, as I understand it, has a 13 -year lease on that
7 property. So there's no immediate relief from the truck
8 traffic in sight. They speak of -- it will be a lower
9 traffic impact because the trucks will be gone. Well, we
10 don't know at this particular time if the trucks will be
11 gone.
12 Maybe Peter Wong will choose to buy Chipman out of
13 the lease, maybe he won't. I don't know, but I don't see a
14 promise or a guarantee of any relief from the truck traffic
15 because the people on the north side know that Chipman and
16 Container Care are the two worst generators of truck
17 traffic that exist there. And Container Care is not going
18 in the foreseeable future. And for 13 years we might well
19 have the Chipman warehouse keep going. So we don't know if
20 the whole project can even be developed at this point, and
21 we don't have any promise of relief from all the truck
22 traffic. Thank you.
23 MAYOR APPEZZATO: I saved my comments for
24 last. Unless another Councilmember would like to speak
25 some more, I will wrap this up. I have been doing this for
Page 91
1 about 10 years now. I have been a member of the Planning
2 Board for 2 years, on the City Council, and Mayor for 6.
3 It will be coming to a close soon. I want to talk to all
4 of you, but also I hope to many of the citizens who are
5 watching, and maybe bring a summary to where I think we're
6 going. I think that should be the role of a Mayor, and
7 I'll do that.
8 The role of the City Council, I believe, is to
9 promote the common good. The common good of all of our
10 citizens, all 75,000, give or take three, whatever the
11 census will be -- it's in the range of 75,000 -- and
12 promoting and providing the services and the best quality
13 of life for all of our citizens. This role of providing
14 for the common good, as you all know by being here tonight,
15 is not an easy one, but we as a Council were elected to do
16 just that. Not everyone will agree on how we proceed, but
17 we must go forward one way or the other.
18 We have choices. We can delay, or do nothing, or
19 we can progressively move forward. No matter what we do
20 there will be criticism. There is a way to avoid that
21 criticism, and that, of course, is to delay, or do nothing.
22 And if you want to go back and look at my campaign
23 literature I didn't run for mayor on the vow to do nothing.
24 The role of the City Council is to make sure we have
25 sufficient revenue to pay for our city services.
Page 92
1 Generating that revenue is critical if we are going to
2 maintain our quality of life.
3 On two occasions in the near past this community
4 rejected raising taxes; one for a school bond, and one for
5 our library. With a two -thirds vote required to raise
6 taxes and or fees it would be extremely difficult, if not
7 impossible, to raise revenue by asking our citizens to
8 raise taxes. Maybe that leads us to the only other
9 alternative to raise revenue by progressively and
10 responsibly promoting business and responsible development.
11 To not progressively move forward, I think, would be
12 irresponsible.
13 We need revenue for our schools. We need
14 affordable housing. We need to provide adequate police and
15 fire services. We need to maintain our libraries and
16 parks, and we need to maintain our streets and trim our
17 trees, only a few things. I suggest that if we do nothing,
18 and delay, or continue to plan forever and ever we can get
19 away with that kind of attitude or thinking for about two
20 or three years. And then in two or three years we will
21 wake up some morning and say, "What happened to our
22 community? The streets have deteriorated because were not
23 going to raise taxes, and we have challenges paying our
24 police, and fire, and our employees." And well look at
25 our parks -- this isn't about a momentary decision.
23 (Pages 89 to 92)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 85
1 it in, we're going to say we like that. It's better than
2 what was there before, and we are doing a good job of
3 planning. And it's not going to be one of those
4 developments where you say, "How did that happen here in
5 Alameda ?" So I'm prepared to support is the project.
6 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Councilmember DeWitt.
7 COUNCILMEMBER DEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
8 I think what we've done here is we've sort of got our
9 procedures mixed up. Like Mr. Sweeney said, we're going
10 ahead with a development when we haven't really done all
11 the planning that we really should do. And that's been our
12 biggest error in here is not having the Specific Plan done
13 before we actually add on a project. And so I recognize
14 that, and I admit that it's really true, and it's a burden
15 to us. But I also realize that we are creating jobs here
16 in the city of Alameda. And if we're going to create the
17 jobs then we need to create the housing.
18 So I looked at this project to see whether or
19 not -- while the Specific Plan would provide us with three
20 things. It would provide us with a use for the project for
21 the location, and provide us with an environmental impact,
22 environmental problems that we may have in the area, and
23 then it would allow us to properly zone the area. So
24 looking at the use for this area it appears to me that the
25 best use, biggest and best, or whatever use for the area is
Page 86
1 residential use.
2 I think if we were to go through with our Specific
3 Plan what have you, we would come out with the highest and
4 best use would be residential. And as Beverly Johnson has
5 said we have a project before us that the City does not
6 own. It's a private developer. It's a private land. They
7 bought it. They're trying to develop it. We can set the
8 zoning. We can give them an idea of what the uses are
9 through the zoning, but we don't really have the right to
10 tell them what color to paint the houses, and exactly when
11 to do everything that's in there.
12 I think that is kind of a problem that Planning
13 Boards and Councils get into. They turn into engineers,
14 and architects, and every other thing. So I really believe
15 that we should set the use for an area through the zoning,
16 and then we should supervise that, and make sure that they
17 are producing things that are in keeping with the
18 community, and the goals and the desires of the community.
19 To make a long story short, I believe that the
20 highest and best use for the area is residential. I
21 believe that the environmental portion of this creates a
22 problem, that it will create additional traffic. 1 believe
23 that we must have an artery along Clement Avenue that takes
24 the traffic off of Buena Vista. I believe that the project
25 here has done what they can do to provide the Clement
1
Page 87
1 Avenue extension. They are going to provide a street
2 called Clement Avenue extension, or whatever the name is
3 going to be. I hope it's Clement, and they're going to pay
4 for it. They're going to build the street, and they're
5 going to pay for it. They will have done what they can do.
6 We still have another portion where the Penzoil
7 tanks are, but I believe that that will fall in line once
8 this development goes through. Then the other property
9 owners will see what is there, and what's going on, and
10 they will try to make some money too, and we will have that
11 Penzoil extension area done.
12 The area that Councilmember Barbara Kerr spoke of,
13 Peter Wong's property is there. We need that area also. I
14 would propose here this evening that we end the Specific
15 Plan, which is going to be developed at a proper -- and a
16 proper access be provided. I know I can't do that tonight,
17 but when you're doing your Specific Plan, which is in the
18 process of going now, we're spending the money. Let's go
19 ahead and make sure that -- what am I trying to say? I
20 know I can't make any motions here, but I would like to
21 see -- Mr. City Manager, would you --
22 MR. FLINT: Colette, would you like to
23 respond to the Chair?
24 COUNCILMEMBER DEWITT: I'm trying to make
25 sure that that --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 88
MR. FLINT: I think it's our understanding,
what was shared with us this evening, we want to preserve
the option of being able to have extension through that
property developed.
COUNCILMEMBER DEWITT: Preserve the option
for the extension. That's a good legal way of saying it.
We're going to do the Specific Plan. We got it a little
backwards, one behind the other, but we still want to do.
the Specific Plan. We want to make sure we get the
transportation accesses down through there. Thank you,
very much.
Mr. Mayor, I believe that the Kaufman and Broad
people have done everything they possibly can with regards
to making sure that the extension is there, and the other
owners will have to be addressed in order to make that. I
believe that housing is our highest and best use. We are
creating jobs. We must create housing. Therefore,
Mr. Mayor, I will support the change of the zoning for that
area.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: May I make one other
comment? We kind of glossed over the issue of the benefits
of the project. The other one that has been mentioned is
the contract with the school district. And two years ago
we would have had more than twice the number we have here
tonight because we had such a controversy about developer
L
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
22 (Pages 85 to 88)
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 81
1 have some in front, some in the back so that it isn't a
2 wall of garage doors. I think that is going to make it a
3 much more attractive design if it goes forward.
4 So I am prepared to support the project. We all
5 want to see the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan go
6 forward, and it needs to go forward, and we have made a
7 commitment that that will take place. What we didn't
8 commit to was putting a moratorium on all Northern
9 Waterfront development until that's done.
10 And I come from the Planning Board. I think
11 planning is very important. I agree with the comments that
12 we've had that we have some developments in Alameda that we
13 are not all that proud of, and I don't want to see that
14 happen again, but I don't think that this is going to be
15 one of those projects. We've heard comments about the
16 quality of life and the quality of the community. I think
17 that this development is going to do a lot to improve the
18 quality of the community in the community that's going in.
19 There have been great efforts to blend the design with the
20 surrounding neighborhood.
21 We've had comments that other areas are small
22 houses on small lots, but what happens with those small
23 houses on small lots is people expand the houses to the
24 extent they can either with or without a variance as
25 needed. But the demands that families have for housing now
Page 82
1 are different from the requirements that families had when
2 those houses were built. And you see all around Alameda,
3 you can see it. We have controversies in neighborhoods
4 because families are moving in. The homes that were built
5 30, 40, 50 years ago that are not sufficient to meet the
6 needs of families now, and so they add onto them. We have
7 people coming to the Planning Board. We have appeals to
8 the City Council because people want to add onto those
9 homes. When homes are built hopefully to meet the needs of
10 who will be living in them we will avoid many of those
11 problems.
12 The traffic -- it's true traffic is a problem. I
13 don't know if it is a problem as much as people say it is.
14 We do have — Councilmember DeWitt and I serve on the
15 Transit Committee. The City of Alameda is making a real
16 effort to make Alameda a more friendly, transit- accessible
17 to provide transit to the residents so that hopefully some
18 of us won't have to own a car, and can get around without a
19 . car. And that's -- we are making a serious commitment
20 toward that.
21 And also the benefits of the project -- the
22 waterfront in that area is not accessible. I think that
23 that benefit alone makes this project well worth it. Once
24 that waterfront is accessible to the residents in that area
25 I think you'll all be thankful we went forward with this
L
Page 83
1 project and that we didn't delay, and delay, and delay
2 because it's a beautiful waterfront there. And from Marina
3 Village to -- I don't know. There's a small amount of
4 accessibility at Grand Street, but really from Marina
5 Village to the east end of town there isn't a place where
6 the waterfront is truly accessible.
7 We're doing the waterfront path there, a park
8 community. The streets will extend from Buena Vista to the
9 waterfront so that it won't be a community that feels like
10 it's surrounded and excluded from the rest of the
11 neighborhoods. So you won't have that. There is not going
12 to be a sound wall. That's been eliminated from the plan.
13 I just feel that this is going to uplift the entire area.
14 People have commented to me if those homes were for sale
15 today they would buy one today before they're even built.
16 People would buy a home today before they are even built.
17 We can't necessarily -- we are creating more jobs in
18 Alameda, and we need to provide houses for those people to
19 live in. We have -- the developers agreed to provide
20 20 percent affordable housing and that is for -- that's
21 basically going to be workforce housing, housing for people
22 who work in Alameda. And one of the ways to eliminate
23 traffic is to provide places for people who work in Alameda
24 with places to live.
25 And so if we can achieve a better balance of
Page 84
1 housing and employment, that will help us solve our traffic
2 problems. So there -- housing is a regional issue. We
3 need to go forward with housing, and that's not to say we
4 should go forward with housing to the sacrifice of the
5 residents who live here now, but I think if our commitment
6 is to move forward with development. We don't -- the city
7 doesn't own that property.
8 One speaker commented that we shouldn't turn it
9 over to a developer. We don't own that property.
10 Something is going to happen there. What we need to decide
11 is do we leave it industrial, or do we want to rezone it as
12 residential. And that's what we're doing tonight is we're
13 deciding whether or not it should be rezoned to allow the
14 residential development.
15 So I will support the project, and I truly believe
16 there has been a lot of effort on the part of the
17 community, and I think that's good. I think that the more
18 input we have, the more interest people take in their
19 neighborhoods, the better off we all are. So I think that
20 -- I appreciate everybody coming in tonight. And I want to
21 let you know we do listen. We may not always agree, and we
22 do listen, and your input is important. But unfortunately
23 sometimes there are always areas where we just can't agree.
24 But I really believe that this is one of the
25 projects that once it's done, once it's in, once people see
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
21 (Pages 81 to 84)
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 77
1 an issue, and it is something that we need to address.
2 Another thing is that these houses are going to be
3 very close to the street. Some of the garages and porches
4 will be as close to the street as from me to
5 a point between Councilmembers Johnson and DeWitt. So
6 that -- and Kaufman and Broad's own presentation showed how
7 close to the street they were. One of the speakers made
8 the very perceptive observation, and we on the north side
9 have known for years, that the density between new
10 developments -- and they're always talking about small
11 neighborhoods. There are. There are also some big ones,
12 but the difference is that the housing in general in our
13 older neighborhoods is inproportionate to the lot on which
14 it sits.
15 And these are going to be very large houses. And
16 as a matter of fact the presentation that they have put in
17 our packet gives the house sizes, and they are really quite
18 large. And so there isn't really very much compatibility
19 between the setbacks proposed for north of Buena Vista and
20 the existing setbacks with the exception of the apartment
21 houses on the southern side. And the front yards on the
22 southern side are generally in proportion to the size of
23 the houses, and these would not be.
24 The reason -- the only power we have really is the
25 rezoning. And if -- because without the zoning then they
Page 78
1 will not have the entitlements to build. And we will not
2 have the power over the decision. We're not -- I'm
3 astounded to hear we're not supposed to talk about design
4 tonight. To me design in urban planning is almost
5 everything. If we still control the zoning then we would
6 have a greater leverage in getting the design that we want.
7 For example, as of last Friday morning they were
8 still uncertain whether the houses along Buena Vista would
9 be built so as to give the appearance of facing
10 Buena Vista, or whether they would be facing the side
11 streets. And what would be presented to the existing
12 community would be the size of the houses with the
13 connecting fences. And I've heard it said that the fences
14 would be wood. They wouldn't be precast concrete or
15 anything, but that's also true of the old drive -in site.
16 If you look at it, its actually a backyard fence.
17 So I would support the change to the General Plan,
18 and support the change to BWIP. I can't support the change
19 to zoning because I think we would be throwing away our
20 leverage in getting support from the extension of the
21 Clement Avenue extension and other planning details. And
22 that's about the only major choice of power that we have.
23 And so I think its important that we nail down
24 some of the things that are going to be happening, and that
25 we do the connection between the Tinker Avenue extension
Page 79
1 and the Clement Avenue extension in one plan, which is the
2 only sane way to do it rather than building -- approving a
3 dead -end street with traffic with no place to go. Thank
4 you.
5 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Just a quick comment. I
6 put together this -- you probably can't see it in fine
7 detail, but the orange are the homes where the garages are
8 set back. So that -- clearly outlines out of 150 or so
9 there are about 80 or so, 80 plus homes, where the garages
10 are set back. And they are clearly scattered throughout
11 the project. The goal of which is, again, when people get
12 out of the cars rather than being able to run quickly
13 inside of their homes and never meet their neighbors, the
14 goal is that they can meet their neighbors.
15 So I think at that minuscule level certainly I
16 think this project, contrary to what Councilmember Kerr
17 implied, this project certainly meets the idea of getting
18 people out of their cars, and walking in their driveways,
19 and perhaps potentially engaging each other in the way we
20 would, which any resident in Alameda would engage each
21 other. I wanted to clarify that because the garages -- and
22 I received an email that this was going to be a series of
23 garages butting up against the street, and that's just not
24 the case.
25 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: I just wanted -- I
Page 80
1 didn't say anything about getting people out of their cars.
2 I think that's a great idea. I use public transportation
3 when I can. In our older, traditional neighborhoods you
4 don't see many garages in the front of the house and --
5 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Exactly.
6 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: -- you certainly don't
7 see 50 percent of the garages in the front of the house as
8 is proposed here. What I said is the houses themselves are
9 going to be very close to the street, and so the front
10 yards are going to be quite small. And many of the
11 setbacks are somewhere approaching the distance between me
12 and some point between the two Councilmembers on the far
13 side. And people do -- so in no way -- I mean, I don't
14 think you were listening to what I said Vice Mayor because
15 that's not what I said.
16 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Okay. Can we listen to
17 some other Councilmembers?
18 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, I will
19 make my comments brief. Just on the issue of garages, just
20 addressing the issue of the detail that Kaufman and Broad
21 has gone to make this a better neighborhood is just the
22 example of the garage doors. There's nothing worse than
23 driving down a street and having garage doors facing the
24 streets. In this development they are proposing to have
25 them staggered, like Vice Mayor Daysog indicated, where you
20 (Pages 77 to 80)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 73
1 meetings. And I can only hope that there will be even
2 more, and that you will also be fully engaged. Thank you.
3 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: First of all, I'd like
4 to applaud Kaufman and Broad's actual inclusion of the
5 low- income housing in the project instead of paying fees.
6 That's a first, and I think that's great. All the other
7 developers have paid fees for the low income housing and
8 moderate income housing. So they do need to be applauded
9 for that.
10 I'm disappointed that the Northern Waterfront
11 Specific Plan has fallen behind. It has been left on the
12 back burner. And I remember talking about it at the
13 beginning of'99, and here we are saying it will be 12
14 months to 14 months before it happens. Because one of the
15 critical issues that we have to solve in this development
16 and in conjunction with other developments is our traffic
17 flow.
18 I remember going -- by the way if you really
19 believe in community participation in these meetings at
20 Independence Plaza, or whatever, then you have to show up
21 and listen to people. But at the meeting, the last Tinker
22 meeting, the traffic consultant calmly announced that he
23 didn't happen know about the Clement extension, or where it
24 would go to make his decision on traffic flow for the
25 Tinker Avenue extension. And for those of you, two or
Page 74
1 three people who may not be familiar with it, the Tinker
2 Avenue extension is a way of bringing and its ancillary
3 projects is a way of bringing traffic out of the FISK and
4 east housing area to and from the tube, and can also
5 connect that traffic flow with the rest of Alameda.
6 There have been various proposals on the
7 Tinker Avenue extension to increase the connection between
8 the FISK and Marina Village Parkway concerning major
9 changes to the Webster /Atlantic intersections, what to do
10 with major changes to the Constitution/Atlantic
11 intersection. That's coming from the west. Flowing into
12 this same area is the Clement Avenue extension. For years,
13 most of the 30 years I've lived in Alameda, it has been
14 known as the Atlantic Avenue extension.
15 The traffic has -- and actually I think it was
16 talked about before I moved here — but the traffic is
17 discussed as flowing along the Northern Waterfront.
18 Kaufman and Broad has already included part of the system,
19 but it dead ends at both ends. And what's disturbing is
20 that that 3.31 acre part of the whole parcel -- there's
21 3.31 acres that's behind the old Del Monte brick building
22 that's needed to bring the Clement Avenue extension to
23 Sherman, but that's not going to be.
24 Kaufman and Broad will be asking for a subdivision
25 so they won't be buying it, and therefore there's no way
Page 75
1 for the traffic to get from their version of Clement Avenue
2 to Sherman. And we haven't discussed that. Mrs. Sweeney
3 brought out an excellent point. For all the years we're
4 talking about the Atlantic Avenue extension, a.k.a. Clement
5 Avenue extension -- well, Atlantic Avenue has been extended
6 from Webster to Sherman in my lifetime, and it is doing a
7 good job of carrying a lot of traffic. But where does the
8 traffic go from there? Right now it all comes to a
9 screeching halt at the stoplight at Buena Vista and
10 Sherman.
11 And I do not understand why people think there's an
12 acceptable level of service at that intersection because in
13 the p.m. commute hours it backs up almost to the entrance
14 to Wind River. It's impossible to get out of Eagle Avenue
15 onto Sherman during the p.m. commute hours. So given that
16 problem, and given that we're spending all this time on the
17 Tinker Avenue extension bringing traffic flow from the west
18 to the entrance to the tube area, and we are spending no
19 time on planning on bringing traffic from the east to that
20 exact same area -- and it's an absolute no- brainer we
21 should be planning the two extensions to meet in a
22 compatible fashion.
23 And we are talking actual prices of between 17 and
24 a half and 20 million dollars to build a Tinker Avenue
25 extension. And we're all throwing up our hands and saying
L
Page 76
1 there's no money for the Clement Avenue extension. This
2 makes no sense at all. We need to get these two major
3 traffic projects planned at the same time, and talking to
4 each other, and funded through the same means.
5 It is absolutely astounding that the traffic headed
6 to the tube from the east and the west along the Northern
7 Waterfront is not being planned together. And so I'm very
8 concerned that the 3.31 acres behind the old Del Monte
9 building -- the request will be to subdivide it out, and it
10 will not be preserved or contributed for traffic flow to
11 Sherman and as a matter of fact no planning seems to be
12 done.
13 If you stand on the west end of Clement Avenue and
14 you look west you're looking into the Penzoil property, a
15 very short stretch, you -- as a matter of fact, you can see
16 the tank farm from the end of Clement. So you can see what
17 will become the road from the west end of Clement. But we
18 aren't even discussing doing anything about that. And all
19 the conversations have been on Tinker and nothing on
20 Clement.
21 I can support changing the General Plan, but
22 because of the statements that I've just made, and because
23 of the statements that -- what the Planning Board found in
24 their meeting -- I can't support accepting the Mitigated
25 Negative Declaration because the traffic problem is clearly
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
1
19 (Pages 73 to 76)
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 69
1 in, and we want to begin to celebrate that sense of
2 community that Joe -- and I forget Joe's last name -- that
3 Joe spoke of. We want to begin to celebrate that sense of
4 community that day by day we feel we may fray away by our
5 long commutes after long commutes to work and to back home.
6 And I think in part what we're speaking about then is
7 really a civic ideal toward which we are all striving and
8 hope to see in our built environment, not just here for the
9 Kaufman and Broad project or for the Northern Waterfront
10 area, but I think certainly for all of Alameda.
11 It is a civic ideal tempered by an appreciation for
12 each other to celebrate, to be able to engage each other,
13 whether it's at corner markets, or whether it's -- for
14 those of you who didn't quite grasp what we are talking
15 about when we were talking about garages that were not just
16 in the front, but in the back -- whether it is the ability
17 to engage each other and talk to each other neighbor to
18 neighbor in the driveway. For far too long we have allowed
19 a close environment that rather than bringing us together
20 has allowed us to separate each other by walls figuratively
21 or literally.
22 And as a result I think that has contributed to a
23 sense of cynicism. But I think what we have here in the
24 Kaufman and Broad design — although technically I know I'm
25 not supposed to talk about design -- I think what we have
Page 70
1 here with the Kaufman and Broad project is actually
2 elements in the built environment that bring us closer to
3 those civic ideals of which we speak and that we value
4 highly.
5 When you look at the grid design, linear streets,
6 they're not just linear streets, but they are streets that
7 extend from other streets from the other side of Buena
8 Vista Avenue so that if you live on the south side of Buena
9 Vista Avenue and the Kaufman and Broad project is there you
10 can go up that street. It's a public street by the way,
11 and you can enjoy the waterfront, enjoy an opportunity for
12 civic engagement.
13 And also, I think, when you look at other design
14 features like the way that they've put in certain kinds of
15 pedestrian- friendly features at the corners of the blocks,
16 I think, that's again to encourage and invite people to
17 celebrate the fact that we live in a community, and that as
18 individuals our fulfillment can't be realized until we
19 engage with each other.
20 So I think when I look at the Kaufman and Broad
21 project and I relate it in comparison to the other issue
22 that's being raised tonight -- the first issue is, I think,
23 one fulfilling our civic ideal, which I think Kaufman and
24 Broad does. And the other issue raised tonight by the
25 residents is one about community input in a planning
Page 71
1 process.
2 To be sure I think we have to be honest here. I
3 think in any process we always have to improve community
4 input whether it's this process or anything else. And no
5 one here can say that we can't improve on community input.
6 And we will, but we are going to need everyone to be
7 involved in the Northern Waterfront planning process. And
8 while community input needs to be increased and improved
9 on, I think it's also fair to say that within that
10 deliberate framework for our discussion where we can better
11 identify how our civic ideals can be built in the built
12 environment.
13 We also come into the civic framework with certain
14 inspirations or values that we hold for our city. For
15 example, I think we all agree that we want residential over
16 industrial land uses. I think we all want traditional town
17 planning versus suburban designs with windy streets that
18 aren't really to the car and not to the pedestrian. And I
19 think we all want an accessible waterfront, and certainly
20 not something that keeps away from that.
21 And I think on these scores alone, on these values
22 that we hold for the Northern Waterfront area, I think it's
23 safe to say that the Kaufman and Broad project meets those
24 values. And for that reason, while certainly they or
25 anyone on the City Council -- we're responsible ultimately.
Page 72
1 While we said we could have improved community input, on
2 the values that we hold for the area in general or the
3 inspirations that we have for the waterfront area I think
4 the Kaufman and Broad really hits the mark. And quite
5 frankly I think this is the project that sets the standard
6 for the Northern Waterfront planning.
7 So I think to summarize, on the one hand we talked
8 about kind of our civic ideals and how we'd like to see it
9 incorporate a built -in environment. And at that micro
10 level I think the Kaufman and Broad project does that, and
11 therefore qualifies for moving forward on the motions that
12 we are being asked to move. And on the macro, on the
13 larger issues, of whether or not this is being integrated
14 well with the specific planning for the waterfront area, on
15 those issues I think they seamlessly fit together. And so
16 I'm open for certainly for future discussion on this
17 matter.
18 I certainly would love to engage residents more on
19 the specific Northern Waterfront planning because I think
20 in the final analysis for that 20 acres what do you want?
21 I think a lot of us want residential. I think a tot of us
22 want nicely planned traditional environments. And I think
23 a lot of us want access to the waterfront.
24 Thank you, very much, and I appreciate the time and
25 energy you took in taking part in tonight's and previous
18 (Pages 69 to 72)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 65
1 The Naval air station, when I was there -- we had
2 another ex- sailor that stepped up here and said, "I owned a
3 car out there, and when the aircraft carriers and
4 everything was in here there was probably a hundred times
5 more traffic" -- excuse the exaggeration -- "than this
6 project will generate." I think that the traffic issue is
7 a non -issue right now, and I would implore the city to
8 rezone this, make this project move forward with something
9 that I as a resident, homeowner, person that lives and
10 works here in Alameda am entirely in favor of.
11 And I am grateful that we have the chance to have
12 developers that want to come here and put their time, and
13 money, and efforts into making Alameda a better place to
14 live. Thank you.
15 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. George Oliver
16 put a slip in, but does not wish to speak. He supports the
17 project. Andy McCormack.
18 MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and
19 members of the Council. I decided to speak in favor of the
20 project, and urge you to proceed with rezoning and
21 approving the plan for one simple reason. We have talked
22 of strategic planning in the City of Alameda for the last
23 25 years that I know of, and we're still making progress.
24 But if you weigh the pluses and the minuses of this project
25 as presented tonight to you, I believe that the pluses far
Page 66
1 exceed the minuses. So I urge you to vote in favor of the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
project.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Nick Cabral.
MR. CABRAL: Mr. Mayor, and members of the
Council, my name is Nick Cabral. I've lived on Buena Vista
between Arbor and Stanton and Bay Street and Mintern for
60 years. I've seen the traffic at its height during 1945,
50. When I was a kid I never could get a bike because of
traffic. And we still got traffic. And I know one thing
that Kaufman and Broad is going to give me an opportunity
to be proud of my neighborhood for the first time in my
60 years.
And I love my neighborhood, but now we're going to
be proud. And I know these concerned citizens. That's why
I love Alameda because all these wonderful people, pro and
con, care for our community. But I think its time for us
to move forward and get this project going. Thank you.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Richard Neveln.
MR. NEVELN: Mr. Mayor, members of the City
Council, I support development in Alameda, and I think in
general this is a good project. I reviewed the Kaufman and
Broad book out in the lobby before coming in, and I was
struck with one thing. As a member of the Public Transit
Committee for the City of Alameda I notice no bus pullouts
or transit shelters in any of their designs.
Page 67
1 And that although we're going to have perhaps less,
2 maybe more, traffic -- as our friend Dr. Bill Smith said,
3 "The devil is in the detail," and that we need to work on
4 the detail of providing better public transit for the
5 citizens of Alameda, and to lead the way with this project
6 with some public transit provisions, shelters, and general
7 considerations by the developer. Thank you.
8 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
9 COUNCILMEMBER DEWITT: Did I hear in the
10 presentation that Kaufman and Broad had made some type of
11 modifications to handle the transportation needs, or not?
12 Would it be possible to get a clarification on that?
13 MR. PANEK: Mr. Mayor, members of the
14 Council, one of the things that we've committed to do is to
15 enter into an agreement to provide bus shelters at the
16 project to assist in transit. Number 2, to provide a
17 marketing plan that will be both the marketing plan for
18 transit opportunities that will be project based. Its
19 components of which will also be available arid can be used
20 city-wide to market transit opportunities. And that plan
21 will be shared and will be developed together with the City
22 Transportation Staff. So we're hitting it from both sides,
23 from a physical improvement as well as a marketing side.
24 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. That's the
25 last speaker. I'll close the public hearing. We'll take a
Page 68
1 very brief recess -- go ahead and speak. We will -- then
2 that will be the last speaker. We will take a recess,
3 very, very short recess, then we'll have Council
4 deliberation, then we will have the regular Council
5 meeting. It shouldn't be too long.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, and
7 Councilmembers, I'm for it. Thank you, very much.
8 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Brief recess.
9 We'll be right back.
10 (Off the record)
11 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Ladies and gentlemen,
12 let's get started. Let's get started. Let's start it
13 before more have to leave. Council discussion.
14 Mr. Daysog.
15 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Thank you very much, and
16 thank you very much to the residents who took the time to
17 come out tonight and to prepare their remarks or to speak
18 from the heart and share the value and the vision that each
19 and every one of you have for all of our City of Alameda.
20 What struck me tonight, I think, was certain words that
21 popped out which, I think, speak to perhaps what the
22 discussions are all about: corner markets, garage doors,
23 speed bumps, the absence of perimeter walls.
24 I think more and more what we want to see and
25 experience is a slowing down of the life that we all live
17 (Pages 65 to 68)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 61
1 the project.
2 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Robert Jensen.
3 MR. JENSEN: My name is Robert Jensen. I
4 live at 14 Marina. I lived in Alameda about four years,
5 and from what I've seen prior to moving to Alameda was
6 planning studies and development studies in the valley
7 where I lived before. I find that the development
8 basically leads how -- or the developers lead how projects
9 are developed. In any area you get one project in and they
10 put the money forth, they take the risk, they develop it,
11 and other projects follow suit, and blend in with that need
12 and with the development idea.
13 And I think Kaufman and Broad have to come in to do
14 this project, and from then on let other projects follow
15 suit and develop according to the needs of the community.
16 I think its a good idea. Thank you.
17 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Dale Reno.
18 MR. RENO: Mr. Mayor, City Councilmembers,
19 my name is Dale Reno. I've been a resident in Alameda for
20 59 years. So I think I beat Mr. Sweeney over there. I've
21 seen every development in the City of Alameda starting with
22 the wartime housing projects, the bay, east shore, south
23 shore, west south shore fill in. We watched the townhouses
24 on Bayfront Island built, and then the Harbor Bay filled in
25 and built. And I've got to say I watched all those, went
Page 62
1 to many of the meetings, and it was always a concern of
2 traffic, always a concern of schools. Until we all die and
3 leave this planet and it's obliterated there is always
4 going to be traffic, and we are always going to need more
5 schools.
6 I think this development has satisfied the
7 requirements for the traffic. Based on the engineer's
8 reports there will actually be a decrease in traffic. They
9 satisfied the school requirement with a recorded agreement
10 with the school department. So I think we've got to move
11 on from those two things. We've beat them to death. We've
12 beaten them to death with every development I've just
13 mentioned, and traffic is going to be with us forever.
14 So this project, the quality of this project, the
15 design, the architecture is better than anything that's in
16 the Bay. Its better than anything that's on south shore.
17 It's better than the east shore homes. It's better than
18 the townhouses on Harbor Bay, and it is as good or better
19 than most of the Harbor Bay Development.
20 This is a fantastic project. The people who live
21 in that area who live here, a few of them have been for it,
22 a few have been against it. That whole area is -- property
23 values are going to appreciate. They are going to get out
24 and mow their lawns. They are going to cut the bushes.
25 They're going to paint their houses. This area is going in
Page 63
1 our lifetime, probably my lifetime I hope, is going to go
2 through a complete rejustification, and its going to be
3 fantastic. And this is going to be the catalyst for it.
4 And I humbly request all of you to vote positively
5 on this tonight. Let's gets away from all the negative
6 stuff. It's positive for Alameda, positive for the
7 neighborhood, positive for all of us. And so I sincerely
8 request you pass whatever zoning is necessary to approve
9 this project tonight. Let's get on with the development of
10 the Northshore.
11 MR. DEWITT: Where do you live?
12 MR. RENO: Right now 3315 Lewis Lane. I've
13 lived in they east end, the west end, the middle of town,
14 and the now the Bay Front. I've seen it all. Thank you.
15 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Mark Ruckman.
16 MR. RUCKMAN: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City
17 Councilmembers. My name is Mark Ruckman, and I was brought
18 to Alameda on board the USS Kismus for 4 years in the Navy,
19 and have since made this my home. I have lived here for 14
20 years, and I am now working in Alameda as the harbor master
21 at Fortman Marina. I have been there for 12 years, and I
22 am proud to call Alameda my home. And I am proud of the
23 schools. I'm proud of the development. And I am proud of
24 the job that Kaufman and Broad has done here.
25 It seems to me, as the other gentleman said here,
Page 64
1 that we're beating some of these issues to death. And I
2 would love for nothing more than for you to move forward,
3 rezone this. I probably have spent more time there being
4 that I've worked there for the past 12, 13 years. Every
5 day, 8 hours of my life, if not more, I've spent half of my
6 life down there like I said for the past 12, 13 years.
7 This place is the one of the spots, other than my
8 marina, that I'm ashamed of in Alameda. The parks here are
9 a wonderful asset to the community. I think that they have
10 done everything they possibly could. They have come back
11 to the bargaining table time and time again to address the
12 community's needs.
13 The situation down there is not only an eyesore,
14 but it's dangerous. I have had to call the police several
15 times to get the children out of there that are playing on
16 top of the tanks, that have been injured, that we have
17 personally taken care of, and bandaged. We have had drug
18 addicts back there. We have had theft and crime as a
19 result of people hanging out back there.
20 The truck traffic is just awful. As far as --
21 another gentleman also touched on the amount of traffic
22 that would be generated from this project. Nobody here has
23 seemed to realize that we are also proposing a Clement
24 Street extension that should alleviate whatever additional
25 traffic you have.
16 (Pages 61 to 64)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 57
1 the activities that led the Economic Development Commission
2 to vote in support of changing the zoning and the
3 requirements of the BWIP plan. We used as criteria, not
4 our own personal biases, but the City of Alameda Economic
5 Development Strategic Plan, which is the nearest thing we
6 have to an up -to -date comprehensive plan for the whole City
7 of Alameda.
8 It was developed by 28- member task force, many of
9 whom are in this room right now, some of whom have spoken,
10 where I think people spoke from the heart of what they want
11 for Alameda. And we measured this project, as is our
12 charge, from an economic point of view. We're not a
13 Planning Board, but were an Economic Development Board.
14 We looked at, first of all, does it meet the requirements
15 of our redevelopment area, which is to remove blight, and
16 to improve the properties within those redevelopment areas,
17 and it certainly does.
18 The last two speakers spoke directly to that. More
19 from the heart of Alameda, I refer back to the Renewed Hope
20 speaker who mentioned the continual theme of affordable
21 housing in this city, the ability of work -force salaries to
22 afford a house in the city, the ability of any of our
23 children to afford a house in this city. And this project
24 in meeting with the intent of the Economic Development
25 Commission from longstanding includes the affordable
Page 58
1 housing as built inside the development where in the past
2 that money was shunted out, and they bought away from that
3 responsibility. This one doesn't.
4 Finally, the two provisions of extending the street
5 grid and removing any kind of walls between this project
6 and existing residential areas was accomplished, and that's
7 a continuing theme, so that this is not a walled
8 development separate from the rest of the town. It also
9 provides waterfront access to the public, which is not
10 currently available in its existing form.
11 When all of these were added up, and then the
12 bottom line to the city, which benefits us all as residents
13 of this city includes an increase in revenue, the Economic
14 Development Commission voted unanimously to support this.
15 Thank you.
16 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Jerry Sherman.
17 MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mayor. My name is
18 Jerry Sherman. I am the President of the Park Street
19 Business Association. I participated in the area -wide
20 strategy that came out in 1991, and was adopted in 1993.
21 This housing element was part of it. It was included in
22 it. So it has been around for a long time. I think Park
23 Street's turnover of property is attributed to the BWIP in
24 a greater amount than the monies that were expensed.
25 Any changes along the Northern Waterfront that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 59
benefit the BWIP are going to greatly enhance the city's
ability to fulfill its obligations and adopt a vision. We
certainly support anything that they can do on that. You
are asked here to change the General Plan, and the zoning,
and the Ordinance Amendments. I ask you to do that as a
way of jump - starting the City Vision Plan, paying for the
projects as they come along, and doing something for
reduction of blight without having eminent domain. Thank
you.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Ellen Lohmeier. Is
Ellen Lohmeier still here?
MS. LOHMEIER: I do have a question. I've
been a resident of Alameda for about three years, and I'm
not familiar with the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan
that everybody keeps talking about. And I wonder when is
the plan supposed to be finished? Is there an answer?
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Yes. Clarice, will you
quickly mention --
MS. MEUNIER: Mr. Mayor and members of the
Council, the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan is projected
to take about a year to 14 months.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Vern Beckwith
and Beryl Beckwith. Do you both want to speak at the same
time? Are the Beckwiths still here? Okay.
MS. BECKWITH: We're coming into this debate
Page 60
1 a little bit late, but we're citizens of Alameda. We have
2 a slightly different perspective. We've just moved into a
3 home at 1415 Willow Street after living aboard our sailboat
4 at Marina Village for almost 15 years. We've seen the land
5 from the water perspective, and I like the suggestion of
6 access from the water. We can agree with that.
7 I think overall the point I'd like to make is that
8 we are definitely in support of a development project of
9 this nature. I think in all honesty we're a bit neutral at
10 the moment about whether or not the Specific Plan should be
11 developed prior to allowing this project rezoning to occur.
12 Thank you.
13 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Derrick Hill
14 does not want to speak, but says he's in favor of the
15 project, but does not wish to speak. Louise Hill. Is
16 Louise Hill still here? David Gonzaleh. Again, another
17 statement, "I do not wish to speak. I'm in favor of the
18 project." Debra Ammvata. If I mispronounced it, I
19 apologize.
20 MS. AMMVATA: I may be young, but I've lived
21 in Alameda for 23 years. I'm in favor of this project. I
22 think it is a good idea. I don't think that it's too
23 dense. I know a lot of people that live in that area, and
24 they don't like the view that they get when they're looking
25 out at the warehouse industrial area. And I'm in favor of
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
15 (Pages 57 to 60)
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 53
1 have to extend the Clement Street to beyond the beltline
2 yard. It says no such thing. It says to consider Alameda
3 Avenue. Well, they've already extended Alameda Avenue, and
4 so that's very passe.
5 And I just would like very much that we have a
6 general overall Specific Plan for the whole Northern
7 Waterfront that takes all the traffic issues. Traffic,
8 traffic, traffic, traffic my darling, it's traffic that we
9 need to address in this city because I don't think the
10 fairy godmother is going to bring us another tube or
11 another bridge in a while. Okay. Thank you. Bye bye.
12 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Michael Connors.
13 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: Mrs. Sweeney, I believe
14 when you were talking about, the extension you were
15 referring to is Atlantic Avenue not Alameda.
16 MS. SWEENEY: Yes, I meant Atlantic. Thank
17 you. Bye bye.
18 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Michael Connors.
19 MR. CONNORS: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is
20 Michael Connors. I live at 1824 Hibbard Street, which is
21 at the corner of Hibbard and Eaker. No other property
22 would be more affected by this development other than mine.
23 I have to admit at first this seemed like a very good and
24 very great idea. I could see nothing but dollar signs.
25 However, the longer I have been here, the more meetings I
Page 54
1 have gone to, and the more I've heard, the more I have to
2 say I find it absolutely necessary that we pause.
3 I've heard the developer himself, or the
4 representative mention that there have been no written
5 negative comments in regards to this rezoning proposition.
6 However, I'm wondering if one hand is watching the other
7 hand. I know that during the Planning Department's
8 discussion of this issue there have been very many written
9 negative comments.
10 I would like the City Council to review the
11 Planning Board's meeting and their decision as to why they
12 absolutely refuse to go ahead, and absolutely decided to go
13 ahead with listening for the Northern Waterfront Specific
14 Plan. There's a reason for it. Most of it has been stated
15 by most of the citizens you've heard tonight, and I wish
16 that you would employ that same sense. There's only one
17 opportunity. It's one island. I know we need to get on
18 with development here as well. We do need to take our
19 time, but like someone else mentioned let's wait. It's
20 very important, and it's worth waiting for. Thank you.
21 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Rich Newman.
22 MR. NEWMAN: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City
23 Council. My name is Rich Newman. I live at
24 1807 Sherman Street directly across from the Del Monte
25 plant. And although I think the point about the Northern
Page 55
1 Waterfront that everybody is making is a very valid point
2 that we should have a plan, I personally do not feel -- and
3 just as a point of reference, I can throw a baseball to
4 most of the areas that would be affected with the Northern
5 Waterfront Plan -- I cannot think of a project in my mind
6 that would be better than putting a development like this
7 in place of what is currently there.
8 I don't think a park, a beautiful park -- well,
9 actually Alameda has plenty of beautiful parks as it is,
10 but I don't think a beautiful park in that area is reality
11 in today's world. And I just feel that this project by
12 Kaufman and Broad, me being a homeowner looking across at
13 Del Monte, and Weyerhaeuser, and Chipman, and the Alameda
14 Beltline that used to go down right in front of my house,
15 which my one -year old son thought was awesome, but I
16 thought it was even better when they shut it down.
17 I just see it being a very good, positive thing for
18 Alameda to put homes like this in. I'll trade those
19 18- wheelers for Lexuses any day. And I think that the
20 issues that Kaufman and Broad have been approached with, at
21 least at the meetings that I've attended, they've really at
22 least come back to the table with an alternate plan. And I
23 think they'll probably continue moving forward if you
24 should decide to go outside of the Specific Plan that
25 everybody is opposed that you not do.
Page 56
1 So I have a very good level of comfort at this
2 point on the project.
3 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Michael Allen.
4 MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Mayor, and
5 Councilmembers. I live on Mintern and Clement Street, and
6 in my backyard I can see the Weyerhaeuser factory. And I
7 must say that I will not miss the noise from the
8 Weyerhaeuser factory if this new development were to go in.
9 Mr. Newman has said that I will not miss the beltline train
10 going by behind my house waking up my two small children.
11 Also I would like to say that while I've been here 9 years,
12 5 years on Mintern Street, 4 of them were on the Naval Air
13 Station in Alameda aboard the USS Texas, and that was far
14 more traffic than I've ever seen in here now.
15 So I think -- I can't remember being behind more
16 than five cars at one time, maybe once. So I don't think
17 this will have a very large impact on traffic, and I think
18 my view will improve. And I think you should go ahead with
19 this development. Thank you, very much.
20 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Frank Matarrese. For
21 those of you who don't know Frank is a volunteer and Chair
22 of the Economic Development Commission.
23 MR. MATARRESE: Honorable Mayor and
24 Councilmembers, members of the public, this is a very
25 important meeting tonight, and I want to point out some of
14 (Pages 53 to 56)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 49
I my house so that a lot of car traffic is cut down by the
2 fact that people can walk back and forth to this corner
3 market to get basic necessities.
4 So I don't see any kind of -- I'm a little leery
5 when I see this project design as a lot of dense housing
6 without any kind of markets, or any kind of little stores,
7 or any kind of things that I think makes a neighborhood.
8 And that's why I support the Northern Specific Plan, and
9 also the General Plan, and the whole General Plan process
10 that will give us a wider view of Alameda as a whole. And
11 I hope very much that we will have a chance to see that and
12 comment on it before moving ahead piecemeal. Thank you.
13 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Irma Marin -Nolan.
14 MS. MARIN - NOLAN: Good evening, Mr. Mayor,
15 members of the Council. My name is Irma Marin -Nolan. I
16 live at 1804 Grand Street. That's on the corner of
17 Buena Vista and Grand. So I have a grand view of all the
18 things that are going to be happening in the developing
19 process. I am really eager to see this happening as soon
20 as possible. I want to close my eyes tonight and open them
21 tomorrow and see nothing but beautiful homes and parks
22 instead of the old deteriorated cars that people leave
23 there to sell or to repair, people walking their dogs
24 because they know that they don't have to clean after them.
25 But at the same time I see that the traffic is
Page 50
1 increasing. I was very interested to hear what the
2 gentleman had to say about the traffic situation. It sure
3 does not sound like my neighborhood. We do not have a
4 break from the traffic until 3:00 or 4:00 o'clock in the
5 morning. When we had the Weyerhaeuser we did have a break
6 after 5:30, and on Saturday and Sundays we had a break.
7 Now we do not have a break. It is very dense. We have a
8 lot of traffic. And if that is happening now what is going
9 to happen in the future when we have all those homes,
10 medium density homes are medium density population. I
11 don't think that's quite true because we have three or four
12 families living in one house and one house that has been
13 divided, one of those Victorians that has been divided into
14 three apartments, plus a basement, maybe a little cottage.
15 All of that has to be taken into consideration. The
16 neighborhood is already very dense, and with this
17 development it will be even more dense.
18 So I am here before you to urge you not to adopt
19 this negative declaration, not to do anything to amend the
20 General Plan until the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan is
21 completed and in place. Let's not leave this opportunity.
22 Let's not let it escape. I am not concerned with something
23 that I can live with, or that you can live with, but I am
24 concerned for future generations of Alameda and something
25 that they can live with. Thank you, very much.
Page 51
1 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Jim Sweeney.
2 MR. SWEENEY: Honorable Mayor, members of
3 the City Council, I'm Jim Sweeney. I've lived in Alameda
4 for 28 years. I've seen a lot happen here. Mostly I'm
5 impressed with the enormity of what's going to happen on
6 this plot. We have an old Alameda neighborhood,
7 established neighborhood on one side, and we have
8 industrial development on the other. I think we have a
9 terrific challenge, and also a terrific responsibility that
10 these people participate in much greater extent than they
I1 have.
12 There's been one meeting, and I understand the
13 applicant asked for more and said there would be more, but
14 there haven't been. These people have put their faith in
15 the idea that there's going to be a Specific Plan. I
16 remember when we sat down with the planning director in
17 February of '99, we talked over the proposals of these
18 consultants. And we talked about -- it was expressly said
19 that the Specific Plan will come first before any other
20 projects.
21 And now we hear that because of resources that it's
22 been placed on the back burner when it should have had
23 priority right along. If we really wanted it to happen we
24 would have made it happen, and we wouldn't be here in the
25 same -- considering the same piecemeal development process
Page 52
1 we've had in the past where we've grown like poppies. We
2 need planning, and I think that's the current thing. We've
3 been talking with all the other plans we've had. We have
4 wonderful examples like in Suisun City, and Portland, and
5 Chattanooga, Tennessee where they've had the overall plan.
6 They have got everything. They have got the
7 transportation. They got the living, the housing. They
8 got everything, all the amenities, and they've done it
9 right.
10 Now we've shot ourselves in the foot by losing many
11 months here, and here we are. The developer is going to
12 sweeten it up a little bit. He's not going to put those
13 duplexes in those three little pockets; he's going to
14 spread them around a little bit; he is going to take down
15 the fence. I think that's great, but what I'm getting at,
16 I don't think these people have had a chance to
17 participate. And we know what we can do with good
18 planning. So let's wake up. Let's not make another
19 mistake, and let's keep our word. When we say we're going
20 to make a Specific Plan let's do it. Thank you.
21 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Jean Sweeney.
22 MS. SWEENEY: I can't possibly say anything
23 any better than anybody else has, but I would like to just
24 point out this mistake in the staff report that I didn't
25 think had to be there saying that the General Plan says we
13 (Pages 49 to 52)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 45
1 neighborhood on August 30th.
2 There is, however, one more issue we would like to
3 bring to your attention in the inner department August 29,
4 to you from the Planning Director. She states that, "My
5 recommendation continues to be that housing development is
6 appropriate in this location."
7 While it true that most of us here think housing
8 development is appropriate for this area, approving this
9 project at this stage of the process without waiting for
10 the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan to be finished is not
11 taken into account. One very important part of the process
12 is this intrinsic Specific Plan that is the chance for the
13 public to have input regarding what type of development is
14 best suited to this area.
15 As it stands now if you approve the rezoning that
16 is before you all that will be left for the public, all of
17 those concerned about the future of Alameda, is to react to
18 the zonings that will be put before us by the developer.
19 There will be no chance to look at the feasibility of
20 services, of corner stores, of services that will be needed
21 by this community, no possibility of work space, no chance
22 to consider commercial uses that would be an asset to this
23 area, and at best will be given a chance to voice our
24 opinions on which of the style standards of suburban
25 housing that are used in this uniquely urban setting.
Page 46
1 It is not enough to look at matters of styles and
2 lot size, sound walls, and street parks, how many garage
3 doors face the street. We have here an opportunity to plan
4 the forward development addressing the core issues of
5 contemporary urban development, real solutions to traffic
6 in an area that provides its residents with services that
7 are needed on a day to day basis; a chance to have
8 residents with different lifestyles, jobs that can be
9 filled by people who can afford to live there; open space
10 that is usable by all the people in the community. In
11 short, a neighborhood that does not just fit in, but one
12 that contributes something over and above more houses.
13 As a community Alameda needs to look at this area
14 in its entirety as a blank canvas for the truly exciting
15 development opportunity. The community infrastructure that
16 is promised in the Specific Plan will provide the forum for
17 new and fresh ideas to consider. This area is the last
18 large area in Alameda where we have a chance to do the very
19 best. It is important you not to place any prior
20 restrictions or commitments in this area. Let us all wait
21 until the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan is in place.
22 Thank you.
23 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
24 David Thurston.
25 MR. THURSTON: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and
Page 47
1 Councilmembers. I'm a resident and an architect here in
2 town. I think we have a great opportunity for
3 redevelopment in Alameda if we are patient and careful in
4 our approach. What is approved tonight will be with us for
5 the foreseeable future. The course which needs to be taken
6 is comprehensive planning review at the macro and micro
7 levels.
8 By taking such an approach we ensure a reliable
9 framework that is created within which we can fit the right
10 pieces to the puzzle. This is why the Planning Board made
11 the intelligent decision to postpone review of this
12 property and its rezoning until further studies are
13 complete, and review the proposal within the larger
14 context. It may be that this project and this designation
15 is perfect for this site. However, we don't have any way
16 of judging that unless we follow an established process and
17 look at the larger context.
18 This issue is not about the project. This issue is
19 about the process. To review rezoning of this property
20 independently of the Planning Process undermines the
21 process and the public trust. I urge you to return this
22 issue back to the Planning Board and to the community where
23 it belongs. If the planning review process is too slow, as
24 some have suggested, perhaps we should focus on fixing that
25 instead of avoiding it because it's broken. Thank you.
Page 48
1 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Virginia Newhoff.
2 MS. NEWHOFF: I've lived in Alameda for
3 three and a half years, and I live at corner of Pacific and
4 Grand Street. And I wanted to comment -- make a couple
5 comments. One is that first of all I find Alameda to be --
6 to have a lot of the qualities that I very much wanted in a
7 place that I wanted to buy a house. I bought my first
8 house here, and I find myself very lucky to be an Alameda
9 resident.
10 I lived in Palo Alto for a lot of years and never
11 bought there, and by the time I got around to buying a
12 house I couldn't buy a house as you can probably imagine.
13 I lived in Palo Alto for many years and saw it go from a
14 place that Alameda kind of is now where you have an ethnic
15 mix, and you had a socio- economic diversity, to being a
16 place where everybody knows you can't get in unless you are
17 very wealthy. And also the kinds of commodities that you
18 can buy in Palo Alto are the kind of commodities that only
19 the very wealthy can afford. And I don't want to see
20 Alameda become that kind of community.
21 So I would like to see Alameda benefit from the
22 planning process. And just as one example of the kind of
23 community I like and that I'm enjoying right now, I have
24 quite an ethnic mix in my neighborhood, people from all
25 over the place. And I have a corner market one block from
12 (Pages 45 to 48)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 41
1 development put in without the total plan for that
2 waterfront completed. Thank you.
3 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Mark Irons.
4 MR. IRONS: Good evening. My name is
5 Mark Irons. I'm a resident of Alameda and a licensed
6 contractor. I'd like to say that the Estuary and its
7 frontage is an important amenity with intrinisic and
8 historic value, which transcends simply into prime real
9 estate for waterfront residents.
10 Tonight I want to attempt using a historical
11 reference to illustrate a point. Frederick Olmstead who
12 you may know was the designer of Central Park in New York
13 as well as the Stanford Campus here in California, Mountain
14 View Cemetery, and a lot of other great stuff
15 He came here in the 1860's, and proposed to the
16 City of Oakland that it acquire undeveloped land, and a 100
17 feet -- in the east side all the trees in Oakland from the
18 hills to the Estuary. He advised that the land was still
19 relatively cheap, and if not pushed by development such an
20 opportunity would be lost possibly forever. We have a
21 great park system. Olmstead was ignored and the
22 opportunity for a true visionary park system was lost
23 probably forever.
24 I think -- it doesn't take much imagination to
25 think if Diamond Park had continued to swath all the way to
Page 42
1 the Estuary the impact that would have been. Times have
2 changed and urban environment times have changed, and urban
3 real estate is no longer cheap by any measure. But we once
4 again have a historic opportunity for vision and planning,
5 which if passed by and squandered we will regret far into
6 the future.
7 That opportunity is the Northern Waterfront
8 Specific Plan. The chance to try to take the longest view
9 you can imagine in terms of land uses in South City Plan.
10 I don't wish to imply by the Olmstead analogy that the
11 entire Northern Waterfront be made into a park. My
12 reference is specifically in reference to the loss of a
13 valuable opportunity for a comprehensive planning tool. I
14 and many other proponents of the Specific Plan spent long
15 hours of serious study of the issues before us as well as
16 attending many City Council meetings, Planning meetings,
17 and other auxiliary meetings.
18 Contrary to what's often been implied, I don't
19 think any of us need run for public office in order to
20 justify our opinions or lend currency to our determination
21 to be heard. However, I believe it to be the
22 responsibility of our elected representatives to do their
23 job in recognizing the Specific Plan as the best possible
24 tool. And now I've lost my place. Excuse me.
25 It's for defining the highest possible uses for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 43
this land. We're surely not all in agreement here tonight
-- and the Specific Plan may not guarantee consensus at its
outcome, but these fast- changing times require the best
effort be made to take the longest and broadest view in
deriving the highest possible land uses and mitigation to
the changes these uses bring.
I urge you to not pass the zoning change until
completion of the Specific Plan and General Plan. Thank
you.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
Robert Rothrock.
MR. ROTHROCK: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, my
name is Robert Rothrock. I am a citizen of Alameda at 9th
and Buena Vista. I keep in touch with the folks at BVAN, a
member of neighborhood network, and right now I've just
started on the Ad Hoc Committee for Webster Street.
Mr. Mayor, at the start of this meeting you said that this
meeting was not to vote on the design of the development,
and yet I sat and I watched a 20- minute presentation on the
design and the development.
So a lot of us have gotten sidetracked on the
particulars of the design. I'd like to just strongly
enforce the public opinion that I've been hearing here that
we should not change the zoning, which is the item that's
on the agenda, prior to having an actual plan because we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 44
don't know what that plan is going to require from the
zoning.
The only way I feel that I can illustrate this is I
have a desire to climb Mt. Everest. I haven't developed a
plan yet, but I have a desire to do this. And just
recently a gentleman came up to me and said if I would wear
their equipment and their clothing that they would actually
take me to the base of Everest. And they would also
provide me with a Sherpa who would take me to the top of
the mountain, and I'm just afraid if I don't get a plan
together I will find myself at the top of Mt. Everest
frozen to death. So I just urge you to go with the plan
first.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Ladies and gentlemen, I
would ask respectfully that you not do that, and make a
scene. Everyone has a right to say what they have to say,
and that's not appropriate. Mr. Holmes.
MR. HOLMES: In a strange twist of fate I
have no voice tonight, and I'll try. It's the best I can
do. Councilmembers, we find ourselves here once again to
discuss the issues relating to the Northern Waterfront.
There are, as I'm sure you are aware, many concerns that
have been and will be brought to your attention regarding
this important time in Alameda. I have attempted to
explain to you the issues that we passed in our
L
11 (Pages 41 to 44)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 37
1 good plan, it might be. We might be able to see that
2 perhaps it shouldn't be a medium density project. I don't
3 think we know that yet.
4 So I just want to make the point that I think we
5 need to have wholistic planning rather than piecemeal
6 planning. There are too many open questions we can't
7 answer. We don't know until we've really studied what's
8 going to happen in a wholistic way. Thank you.
9 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Laura Thomas.
10 MS. THOMAS: Hello. My name is Laura Thomas
11 and I'm a member of Renewed Hope, and I've lived for 17
12 years at the corner of Buena Vista and Chestnut Streets.
13 First I want to say that I support the efforts that the
14 developers Kaufman and Broad have made to provide
15 affordable housing in this development. Affordable housing
16 is not a euphemism for subsidized housing, or Section 8
17 Housing -- I think that has to be repeated often -- but
18 it's exactly that, homes for people who earn less than
19 $70,000.
20 I understand the developers have offered to sell
21 20 percent of the 152 units of below market realty, and I
22 think this is an excellent start. However, I submit we can
23 probably do better, and probably should if we want to
24 guarantee the economic health of Alameda in the future. I
25 think 25 to 30 percent would be better, and I'll tell you
}
Page 38
1 why. People in all job categories, even those in much
2 touted high -tech industry, are having a terrible time
3 finding housing. They can't find homes. They can't even
4 find apartments the can afford. This is a crucial issue
5 the city must address if it truly wants to accommodate all
6 the new business it's anticipating in this area, and the
7 base, and elsewhere. Housing is an essential part of the
8 infrastructure as are roads, sewers, and water.
9 Having said that as a resident, I'd like to say
10 that I'm in favor of the density in this development. I
11 know that many are opposed to greater density, but I think
12 the real problem is not the number of people who would come
13 to live in this development, but the cars they would bring
14 with them.
15 The neighborhood is already very densely populated,
16 and probably more than many really realize. And I think
17 the impact of a person who walks or takes public transit is
18 actually quite minimal, but a person who drives a car has a
19 much greater impact. And probably this project, before
20 it's approved, should have every possible element in it to
21 discourage people from using their cars.
22 I haven't looked at the design very carefully
23 myself, I have to admit. I'm glancing at it right now. It
24 looks like the garages are in the back of the houses. I
25 think that's good. The streets are probably really wide.
Page 39
1 I know that in most suburban developments the streets are
2 made really wide, and probably shouldn't be made quite so
3 wide. There are probably many other things that could be
4 done to accommodate more affordable housing, and keep
5 people from driving.
6 I'm going to stop now because I don't really know
7 all the aspects. I guess I should. Anyway, thank you for
8 this opportunity. The last thing I'd like to say is I know
9 other people in the neighborhood have said they haven't
10 been listened to much, and I think that's probably the
11 greatest problem is that citizens don't feel they have much
12 impact on any of these developments in Alameda, and that's
13 too bad.
14 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Ms. Lamb. I
15 think it's Danai.
16 MS. LAMB: City Council, Mr. Mayor, my name
17 is Danai Lamb and I live at 1525 Pacific Avenue, which is
18 at the corner of Arbor Street and Pacific. So I'm pretty
19 close. Arbor street is a small, very small block. I'm in
20 favor of development, but I'm not in favor of something
21 that's unspecific. So I agree with most of what's been
22 said.
23 The thing that I'd like to add too about traffic is
24 that very often traffic gets diverted from Buena Vista onto
25 Pacific Avenue. Now this is not an official diversion by
Page 40
1 the police or anything. This is when it gets backed up at
2 Grand Street, which it does all the time even now, and so
3 people decide to turn off on J Street, or turn off on Arbor
4 and speed down these teeny, tiny blocks, which are barely
5 able to fit two cars next to each other, and then race down
6 Pacific Avenue.
7 And the fact that Pacific Avenue doesn't have many
8 stop signs, it's a really great place to race. And we
9 haven't been able to get speed bumps or anything like that,
10 and that's a different issue. Some people think you can
11 stop people from driving. I submit that we cannot stop
12 people from driving, that the State of California has
13 worked very hard for years thinking that if we make more
14 roads then that will allow people to drive on them, and
15 that yes, we'll try to have people commute. But to tell
16 you the truth it's like spending money, and you always end
17 up spending what you have. People will drive as much as
18 the roads will allow it.
19 So I think that's sort of a false -- you can do all
20 the traffic studies you want. Buena Vista is a small
21 street. It's actually sort of a neat street. I grew very
22 attached -- I've lived here 14 years. I grew very attached
23 to the Estuary, to the history, to the industrial, to the
24 Alameda Beltline. I don't mind seeing the tank park
25 destroyed, but I definitely don't want to see a housing
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 33
1 for the opportunity to once again remind you that you're
2 stuck with me. The first thing I'd like to say is I'd like
3 to submit a copy of my comments submitted to the Planning
4 Department regarding the 2000 General Plan Update, which I
5 am have done to the best of my ability. I will not bore
6 you with that document, reading it here. I hope it stands
7 on its own one way or the other.
8 However, reading the 1990 General Plan in
9 preparation for the update, I was struck by how off base it
10 is, pardon the pun, because it never anticipated closure of
11 the base. It never anticipated a lot of changes in our
12 industrial base that are no longer there. Weyerhaeuser is
13 no longer there. And I would like to suggest that any
14 decisions made on that 1990 General Plan should not be made
15 when they are at this scale, even if the development is
16 acceptable to its neighbors, and apparently from what I'm
17 hearing it is not.
18 But just for the sake of argument, assuming that it
19 were acceptable, that it were a perfect development, that
20 all the houses looked like they belonged in Alameda, that
21 would be one thing. It would still be important to me that
22 this community develop a General Plan that is current for
23 Alameda before it makes any more major changes.
24 And I was disturbed by the Planning Director's
25 comments that the Northern Waterfront Plan is moving along
Page 34
1 as fast as it can in competition with other things. It
2 probably should not have proceeded until the Northern
3 Waterfront Plan is done. So there may be a cart before the
4 horse kind of issue here.
5 And I would like to tell a little story. Last fall
6 we needed to do some remodeling. So I had a friend of mine
7 who's an architect, who agreed to do the deal for us to
8 drop some plants, and he is a very good architect. And I
9 went down to our friends in the Building Department
10 downstairs and talked to Linda Fouier and Gale Moore who
11 are very capable individuals. And you know what? They
12 made us change a whole lot of things on those plans, not
13 because the design had changed, but because it wasn't
14 represented accurately. Small details we thought.
15 It was sort of funny the first time going back and
16 forth. The fourth time it got a little old, but my
17 admiration for them increased. They made us make sure we
18 knew what we were doing, and that the documents that we
19 submitted, the plans we submitted, we were not only of
20 average quality, but high quality. And everything was
21 showing that needed to be. I really respect the kind of
22 work they do in that office.
23 And I think it may be a very good model to follow
24 in any major development decisions that this Council has
25 come before it. And I hope you will carefully consider all
Page 35
I the details before you let anything go through. Thank you,
2 very much.
3 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
4 Diane Lichtenstein.
5 MS. LICHTENSTEIN: Good evening. I'd like
6 to talk a little bit about policy. I am concerned that the
7 approval of this comes before the Northern Waterfront
8 Specific Plan as has been discussed. We have a wonderful
9 opportunity right now. We're right on the edge to develop
10 our city in very exciting ways, the Northern Waterfront
11 Alameda Point, FISK, Park Street, Vision, Economic
12 Development Strategic Plan. And all this adds up to the
13 General Plan.
14 And this Kaufman and Broad may well be a very
15 wonderful development, but to approve it before we know
16 what the total plan is, is concerning to me because of the
17 opportunities that we have. This may not be the plan. It
18 ust depends what the final decision is. Does it fit into
19 our vision? And this is my concern. So I would urge that
20 we hold off approval until we have a definitive plan in the
21 entire area. Thank you.
22 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Susan Kaplan.
23 MS. KAPLAN: I too would ask that we hold
24 off with this development until the Specific Plan is in
25 place. Speaking from my small, little part of Alameda,
J
Page 36
1 which happens to be Buena Vista Avenue where I live, I am
2 naturally concerned with the traffic on that street. I was
3 curious one day as I drove up Buena Vista Avenue about the
4 perception of the street as being such an industrial
5 boulevard or a freeway as it has been called. And it
6 occurred to me this street is not really very wide.
7 So I inquired, and I found out in fact Buena Vista
8 Avenue is 42 -feet wide. Lincoln is 56 -feet wide.
9 Santa Clara is 50 -feet wide. Central is 48 -feet wide. So
10 of those streets Buena Vista is the narrowest street, and
11 perhaps the least able to handle the traffic. Of course,
12 right now Buena Vista is handling more traffic than all of
13 those streets are including Lincoln.
14 So I think we need to be really sensitive about any
15 kind of development at all. But the piecemeal nature is
16 what concerns me because we'll have this development. It's
17 certain we're going to have the Del Monte development too,
18 and there will be others behind it. And when you add all
19 these figures together it does -- I don't think we can
20 avoid the traffic.
21 So I think the best thing we can do is study it as
22 an all -over plan, and that would be the Specific Plan. We
23 have that opportunity to do it. I continue to hear this
24 particular project is described as a medium density
25 project. If we knew everything there is to know, we had a
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 29
1 what were doing.
2 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
3 Debra Arbuckle.
4 MR. DAYSOG: I want to say real quickly your
5 point is well taken that this is all about a sense of
6 community, not just a kind of a social or spiritual sense,
7 but in the sense that we devise our built environment. And
8 I hope through the course of this night that we as a
9 Council try to convey that the term "sense of community" is
10 something we take dearly. And hopefully we will be able to
11 convey that.
12 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Debra Arbuckle and then
13 Tom Matthews.
14 MS. ARBUCKLE: Hi. I'm here with the
15 Neighborhood Network. And there's a number of neighbors
16 around the city that have been working on these development
17 issues for a good part of the last year and a half, two
18 years. And kind of what came out of a lot of public
19 meetings was the need for the Northern Waterfront Specific
20 Plan. So we spent a lot of time -- I mean David asked you
21 because David sat in on hiring the consultants to do it.
22 He took two days off of work. All of us have spent a an
23 incredible amount of time reading emails, the consultant's
24 proposals, looking at these issues.
25 And Kaufman and Broad hasn't included us in this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 30
process. They get to get up here and say this is what
we're going to do, and it may look nice, it may not look
nice. The issue is we have not made this decision as a
community, and that to go ahead and skip the Northern
Waterfront Specific Plan, or some type of plan -- I don't
care what you call it, or how you get it going -- is a
mistake. And we feel like we're being left out of the
loop, and that we are wasting our time.
And, you know, we want to be involved. We want
this to be a better city. We want a voice, and we feel
like we're being left holding a bunch of paper. So I would
hope that you could consider waiting, maybe having some
more meetings with Kaufman and Broad, seeing if we could
move this Specific Plan along in the manner it was supposed
to.
I was told by the group planning the General Plan
that they were expecting to look at this area and plug in
the Specific Plan. So if it's not done for part of it what
good is it? We've got this mish mosh. We'll do this one.
If it all works, oh gee, that's nice. If it doesn't, oh
well. We're out of luck.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Tom Matthews
then Jon Spangler.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members
of the Council. My name is Tom Matthews. I've lived in
Page 31
1 Alameda for 17 years. Pm the chair of Renewed Hope
2 Housing Advocates. This project provides you with the
3 first opportunity to address the work -force housing issue
4 since Renewed Hope, we thought, brought it to everyone's
5 attention with the East Housing struggle.
6 Kaufman and Broad is the first developer in town to
7 develop the required 15 percent affordable units actually
8 on the site and not pay fees for something off the site.
9 We applaud them for that effort. However, we met with them
10 just before the Planning Board meeting over a month ago and
11 asked them to increase their affordability level to 25
12 percent with the additional units being for those folks in
13 the middle who are left out by the redevelopment
14 requirements. That's the folks whose incomes for a family
15 of four ranged from $35,000 to $68,000.
16 They have now proposed to do an additional 7 units
17 for working families, as we understand it at this point.
18 We welcome this effort, but believe it's not enough.
19 There's enough housing tax house increment generated by
20 this project to include an additional 8 units, and bring
21 the affordable units up to 25 percent.
22 Some folks feel that this project is too dense.
23 Our view of the project is that it's a density that is
24 fairly similar to the surrounding community. By today's
25 standards with high land costs this is in some senses
Page 32
1 fairly low density. And density does not have to mean what
2 happened at the drive -in site. Density can be planned and
3 put together in away that fits into the community, and also
4 makes a livable place to live.
5 Others feel that the plan for the entire Northern
6 Waterfront should be in place before the development is
7 approved. Most zoning and general plan designations in
8 this plan have really been done. A developer takes some
9 risks. When he proposes a project to the city, that's the
10 time for providing the changes. I don't believe, frankly,
11 that a Northern Waterfront Plan would change this project
12 dramatically. I think it would probably have very little
13 impact on this project.
14 We can set aside land for the streets, parks, all
15 the things that they've talked about. What should be
16 different is a larger number of affordable units to enable
17 Alamedians to remain in the community, and for the
18 community to provide housing for the new jobs being
19 created.
20 We urge your support of the project. However, we'd
21 like to see the affordable units increased to 25 percent.
22 Thank you.
23 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
24 Jon Spangler.
25 MR. SPANGLER: Good evening, and thank you
8 (Pages 29 to 32)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 25
avoid triggering an Environmental Impact Report. And they
actually have a word for it. It's called segmenting.
So the other thing I'm concerned about is I
mentioned one of the pages was missing from the negative
declaration. I guess I'm out of time. I would like to go
into that since it was not in the report, and people have
not had a chance to look at it.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Please wrap it up. Go
ahead.
MS. OLSEN: This section addresses the
cumulative affects of future impacts on traffic by other
planned or reasonably foreseeable future developments, and
I'm going to quote here. And it says, "Under the
cumulative condition scenario in addition, cumulative
traffic to the current conditions would deteriorate the
traffic level of the service for all studied intersections
identified on the Table 3 during the a.m. and p.m. peek
hour periods to below a level of service D. And to
sections that do not presently meet the level of service D
standards would be incrementally impacted by an addition of
project traffic." And level of service D is described as
unfavorable, and may result in longer delays, many vehicle
stops, individual cycle failures, and the influence of
congestion becomes noticeable.
The Negative Declaration only discusses traffic at
Page 26
1 major intersections. It doesn't talk about the cross
2 streets that cross Buena Vista Avenue. I live on
3 Willow Street, and I have concerns that when all of this is
4 said and done we're going to have several more traffic
5 lights on Buena Vista Avenue. So I would like to know
6 about that ahead of time because, frankly, I would like to
7 put my house on the market now because when those traffic
8 lights are in place it will significantly devalue my house.
9 Thank you.
10 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. There are some
11 people in the city that want traffic lights on every street
12 corner that we have believe it or not. Angus McDonald.
13 And that is to stop the speeding.
14 MR. MCDONALD: Mr. Mayor, members of the
15 Council, I've been listening to this interesting
16 presentation. I just had one small comment that while
17 we've considered access to the water, we haven't considered
18 access from the water. And that, in fact, there's a place
19 where the park goes all the way to the Estuary. And we're
20 only to provide a place where a dingy can come in? We need
21 to provide a place where people can get from the water to
22 Alameda as well as getting from Alameda to the water.
23 Thank you.
24 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. David Landau.
25 MR. LANDAU: Good evening. My name is
Page 27
1 David Landau. I live at 1807 Wood Street. As I am sure
2 you are all aware the Planning Board voted 4 to 1 to not
3 approve the negative declaration until the Specific Plan
4 was completed. I actually would like to ask the Planning
5 Director Venure to clear up some confusion. In February of
6 this year a consultant was chosen for the Northern
7 Waterfront Specific Plan, and in March the Council approved
8 this choice, and the Planning Department began to assemble
9 the funds.
10 It's now September and there is no Specific Plan.
11 It hasn't started. And I'm wondering why there's been this
12 delay, and what's been the delay as far as the funding, and
13 who's providing the funding in Kaufman and Broad's case?
14 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Is that the end of your
15 statement?
16 MR. LANDAU: Yes.
17 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Colette, do you want to
18 answer that question as best you can?
19 MS. MEUNIER: Mayor Appezzato, members of
20 the Council, the issues that we have been working on since
21 we were before you is to see who is finalizing the scope of
22 work which requires coordination with Public Works and the
23 resolution of those issues with Planning, Public Works, and
24 the consultant in order to arrive at a final budget and
25 work program. And then negotiating, working with staff for
Page 28
1 grievance with the Economic Development Commission for
2 grievance with the developers who are going to provide
3 up -front financing, and then be reimbursed for the portion
4 of it that exceeds that.
5 And, again, given the number of other projects that
6 I know the Council is aware of, we have moved these forward
7 as quickly as we can given other work load items.
8 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
9 Joseph Graceffo.
10 MR. GRACEFFO: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you,
11 City Council. I would like to add my voice to those that
12 have requested a Specific Plan for the Northern Waterfront
13 Development. I would also urge the City Council to use
14 prudence and caution before turning over a 20 and a half
15 acre parcel of valuable community property to a developer
16 known for its track record of dense housing developments.
17 There is --
18 MAYOR APPEZZATO: It's 20 acres of private
19 property, not community property.
20 MR. GRACEFFO: The reason why we are here is
21 we have a sense of community --
22 MAYOR APPEZZATO: It can't be community
23 property if you are not willing to pay taxes on it.
24 MR. GRACEFFO: And were not trying to do
25 . that. We just want to keep that send of community about
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 21
1 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you.
2 MR. DAYSOG: Mr. Rickard, I just want to
3 state that I think you do -- you underestimate the power of
4 the residents and the voices that have been raised. It
5 wasn't just in working through the issue of the walls, but
6 also in establishing the values that you hold for your
7 neighborhood, and those values that we hold for all of the
8 Northern Waterfront not just in terms of walls, but in
9 terms of city street designs and auto dependent, auto
10 friendly, whatever.
11 So there's a lot of areas I think where some of the
12 values that you expressed, or many of your colleagues
13 expressed, have certainly been listened to. So I just
14 wanted to emphasize that.
15 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you, Tony.
16 Melissa Ehn, if I mispronounced that I apologize.
17 MS. EHN: Good evening. Last spring the
18 City Council approved funding to begin a process of
19 creating a Northern Waterfront Specific Plan. The Specific
20 Plan offers a historic opportunity to ensure that land use
21 decisions, which will affect Alameda citizens for
22 generations to come are made with care, consideration, and
23 input from the community. City Staff, members of the
24 Planning Commission, and members of the public have already
25 put innumerable hours into this plan.
Page 22
1 Now the City Council is being asked to approve a
2 project which will remove one fifth of the proposed plan
3 area from consideration. The Alameda Planning Commission
4 has already recommended that the Council not approve this
5 project until the plan has been completed. We've heard
6 some assurances that the project will be in keeping with
7 the goals of the Specific Plan. But how can we know that
8 before these goals have been formulated? It's extremely
9 rare for a city to have the opportunity to shape
10 development rather than allowing development to shape the
11 city.
12 Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.
13 Complete the Specific Plan before you approve this project,
14 and ensure that we end up with development that we all want
15 to live with, instead of development we have to live with.
16 Thank you.
17 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you. Clarice Olsen.
18 MS. OLSEN: Hi. I live at 1717 Willow
19 Street. I've lived in Alameda for 8 years. I've worked
20 the past 10 years for the U.S. Environmental Protection
21 Agency. I do not claim to be an expert on the California
22 Environmental Quality Act, however, I do have a substantial
23 amount of environmental experience, knowledge, and
24 resources that are available that have helped me in
25 preparing this statement. I want to be clear I am here not
Page 23
1 as a representative of the EPA, but as a concerned resident
2 of Alameda.
3 The first issue I want to address is environmental
4 justice. Environmental justice is a movement that resulted
5 from the impact that people of low income and especially
6 people of color were exposed to a disproportionate amount
7 of pollution compared to the rest population. In other
8 words, the pollution was located in their neighborhoods.
9 The plan in this proposal is to locate some of that
10 housing, below - market housing, in a separate parcel
11 adjacent to the Penzoil facility, a large hazardous waste
12 generator.
13 In 1998, Penzoil tower controlled on -site release
14 of 33,135 pounds of ammonia, not to mention they have 44
15 above - ground storage tanks, which holds millions and
16 millions of gallons of petroleum products. The proposal
17 does not address the risk of future residents from off -site
18 contamination from this facility. Of particular concern is
19 what would happen to all of those things in the event of an
20 earthquake?
21 What bothered me most about this is that when the
22 developers in the meeting with the Planning Commission were
23 questioned about this they said the reason why the houses
24 were placed on a separate parcel was because of the garage
25 orientation. When the fact of the matter is that this
Page 24
1 location will dictate that those prices are always going to
2 be below market value. And, in fact, what we are doing is
3 creating a just slim area.
4 The other concern I have is with traffic. And I
5 was interested to hear the remarks from the engineer
6 because that's not what was in the negative declaration.
7 And, in fact, one page out of the negative declaration,
8 page 49, was missing. But I'm going to go into that now.
9 The baseline study that was used in this statement was when
10 the warehouses were in operation, and one of these
11 warehouses has been closed for approximately 7 years, as I
12 understand it.
13 The study found that with the mitigation project it
14 would not exceed the 30- vehicle trip threshold established
15 by the city, which in my understanding would trigger an
16 Environmental Impact Report. My concern is that by having
17 this piecemeal development we will have several small
18 parcels that will have small increments in traffic that
19 won't exceed that 30 threshold limit, but when you look at
20 the cumulative effects over time what we're going to have
21 on our hands is a traffic nightmare.
22 So I mentioned this approach, this piecemeal
23 approach, to our EPA Environmental Justice Coordinator, and
24 he informed me that, in fact, this is common practice among
25 developers to use this piecemeal approach because they
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 17
1 That will end my presentation. I can answer
2 questions now if you'd like, or if you would like me to
3 bring up Mr. Kinzel for just a couple minutes on traffic.
4 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Go ahead on the traffic
5 real quick.
6 MR. PANEK: Thank you, Mayor.
7 MR. KINZEL: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, good
8 evening. My name is Chris Kinzel. I'm a traffic engineer
9 with the firm of TJKM Transportation Consultants. We were
10 retained to prepare the traffic study for the application
11 that's before you this evening, and we prepared a
12 comprehensive traffic study for the project. We looked at
13 traffic conditions both in the year 2000, as well as 2020.
14 We looked at traffic conditions at 15 intersections
15 including two in the City of Oakland and several street
16 sections.
17 For your information the proposed project generates
18 only about 25 percent of the traffic that permitted
19 industrial uses could generate. For the year 2000 all 15
20 intersections operated at acceptable levels of service with
21 or without the project, and in both the a.m. and p.m. peek
22 hours. One intersection needs a signal right now under
23 existing conditions. And by 2020, traffic conditions are
24 projected to worsen in the city. 8 of the 15 intersections
25 degrade to level of service E or F conditions without the
Page 18
1 project.
2 However, all the intersections have mitigation
3 measures identified that would allow them to get to an
4 acceptable level of service. And when you add project
5 service traffic to these 2020 conditions the service level
6 remained unchanged at 14 of the intersections. At one of
7 them the level of service changed from a level of service C
8 to D, and of course D is considered acceptable.
9 The project is improving pedestrian conditions
10 within and near the project, and is constructing a portion
11 of the Clement Street extension, and is contributing its
12 fair share portion of the 2020 mitigation measures needed
13 by paying into the city's proposed traffic impact fee. I
14 wanted to give that overview, and if there are any
15 questions on traffic I can answer them now or later.
16 MAYOR APPEZZATO: We might have questions
17 for you later. Let's go ahead with the public hearing.
18 MR. KINZEL: Thank you, Mayor and Council.
19 It is our pleasure and I would be happy to answer any
20 questions.
21 MAYOR APPEZZATO: There may be some so just
22 hang tight here. We'll get to you later. Stuart Rickard.
23 MR. RICKARD: Good evening. I assume I have
24 3 minutes here?
25 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Yes. We have a lot of
Page 19
1 speakers so I would like to keep itat 3 minutes.
2 MR. RICKARD: I am very excited about this
3 project, and I think it provides a vision of what can
4 happen in this area. However, I don't think it's the best
5 that we can get, and I think you as City Councilmembers are
6 under an obligation to the community members to try to get
7 the best that you can, and balance the needs of the private
8 sector with what the community interests are.
9 I would like to address what I think is some
10 inaccuracy with regard to the density of this project.
11 I've heard it said that this is the same density as the
12 existing development in the area, but it's not. This is
13 big houses on small Lots where the existing community is
14 small houses on small lots. So I think there will be a
15 very obvious difference in the density of this project.
16 And the developers are being allowed to do in this project
17 things that individual property owners would not be allowed
18 to do in the surrounding neighborhood, including FAR and
19 setback variances.
20 Just to go on, I'm very concerned about the
21 remainder parcel because although there is a plan to
22 provide conditions for that parcel that will address
23 development on the that parcel in the future, it could just
24 remain an undeveloped parcel for a long time because it is
25 not tied into what will happen with the Del Monte property.
Page 20
1 I would like you to very carefully look at that issue.
2 I think -- when we looked at this there was a
3 community meeting on this project back in October of last
4 year, and it was promised at that time by the City, if not
5 the developer, that there would be further public meetings.
6 And really the public meetings we've had have been in this
7 kind of forum where there's no question and answer session,
8 and we can't have a dialogue.
9 And I think we've achieved something even under
10 those conditions by removing the sound wall, but I think we
11 can do a lot more if we just take a break. Don't push this
12 through tonight, and have some time to speak with staff and
13 the developer, and address any concerns that the community
14 has. I think if we do push it through tonight, and there
15 may have been a counting of votes prior to this meeting,
16 and there's a feeling that yes, we can do it so let's just
17 go ahead and do it. I think that leads to a lot of anger
18 and disappointment and apathy among the community because
19 they feel that they can't have any input. And I think that
20 -- the worst outcome is that there's a lawsuit on this, and
21 I think that --
22 Wow, that went very quickly. Anyway, I hope that
23 you will ask the developer to continue this project to
24 another meeting and ask the developer to meet with the
25 community.
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 13
1 Waterfront, and with all the amenities we've talked about.
2 They got stuck, if you will, on the policy issue of the
3 Northern Waterfront planning process. But two of the
4 issues that stuck out to me were inclusionary housing.
5 Two things that the Planning Commission brought up,
6 they brought up targeting a goal of 20 percent of the
7 housing in this project being affordable, and that they
8 would be better distributed throughout the project. I tell
9 you that we have had discussions with both our designers as
10 well as the City Staff here. We know that the site plan
11 can accommodate and are planning to accommodate the
12 30 units, as I stated, of affordable housing.
13 We are committed to providing that, and we are
14 committed to continue with dialogue with City Staff to help
15 make that happen. We will continue that through the
16 tentative mapping process and bring you a project that
17 meets this 20 percent target.
18 The traffic is an issue that is kind of an esoteric
19 one for me, and I can just deal with numbers. And
20 Chris Kinzel from TJKM is our transportation consultant,
21 and he has worked with your staff, and 1 would ask Chris to
22 make a brief presentation when Pm through. Sort of the
23 bottom line to me is over the baseline from where these
24 industrial facilities were operating we have a net
25 reduction of 158 trips per day, 159 trip reduction during
Page 14
1 the a.m. hours, and 1 trip addition during the p.m. hours.
2 The other thing about this traffic study that I
3 would like to comment on is this idea of the ITE standards
4 versus what is actual, and it ties into this on -island
5 employment and residential opportunities. The baseline
6 standards that generation reads that we use are the very --
7 standards that are used for suburban subdivisions.
8 We do not feel that this is a subdivision. We have
9 actually done accounts at our other project on the island.
10 They are different. They are lower. We think that, and we
11 know that people are telecommuting. They're working from
12 home. They're using office conversions, and they're
13 looking for employment opportunities on the island, but I
14 think we have a very conservative traffic study. We have
15 an overall net reduction in traffic.
16 The Economic Development Commission, they gave
17 unanimous support to this project. They cited the
18 various -- there was an area -wide strategy that talked
19 about making this area residential with positive fiscal
20 impacts, public access trail, affordable housing, and of
21 course elimination of blight.
22 Now, while we're loading here we're going to get
23 some views of the project site Buena Vista Avenue and
24 Hibbard Street. That is the existing Weyerhaeuser
25 facility. This is what it would look like after. It is --
1
Page 15
1 these are front doors here facing the street. I apologize
2 for the graininess of the pictures here. This is the
3 entrance road at the tank farm. This is the shipment
4 moving, storage facility, bulk storage facility, and the
5 Fortman Marina is here. What this shows is the beginning
6 of the Waterfront Park, Clement Street extension, entrance
7 to Fortman Marina, and a duplex on the corner.
8 This is a view towards the project looking south.
9 This is obviously the marina with the tank farm, again, in
10 the foreground. And what you end up with is, this is the
11 Waterfront, a portion of the Waterfront park, the homes
12 back on the opposite side of Clement Street. This is a
13 view looking on the Clement Street extension across the
14 front of the project. This is the Waterfront Park Plaza
15 right here, public streets, houses oriented to the public
16 streets.
17 I heard comments in the audience about a wall. I
18 would just like to disspell that. There are no walls at
19 all proposed in this project. The project is being built
20 essentially at grade. There are no artificial grades
21 created. There are no walls proposed. There are fences
22 between lots as you would see in any project, in any home
23 in Alameda, wood fences. And there are front yards and
24 side yards. It's a very traditional look.
25 This is looking from within the industrial site,
L.
Page 16
1 the Weyerhaeuser facility. This is Buena Vista Avenue.
2 These are houses on Buena Vista and beyond. And again
3 looking down a public street the separated sidewalks, front
4 yards, street tree planting, and houses beyond. We think
5 it fits very well into the neighborhood and into the
6 atmosphere we're trying to create for this project.
7 Just briefly to go through the site very quickly
8 the Buena Vista Avenue here. This is Clement Avenue
9 extension along here, our Waterfront Park, the water and
10 marina here. It's a large green, grassy area, the
11 connection of the Waterfront trail, the plaza area,
12 extension of Stanton and Hibbard Streets north to south to
13 access the Waterfront. In addition, there are three other
14 public streets bringing you down to the Waterfront
15 On this plan there are duplexes located here, here,
16 and here. Our new plan that we are working on revising
17 will eliminate this pot of duplexes, and in its place we
18 will have four unit modules located mid -block on these
19 three blocks in the project. So that would give us the 30
20 duplex units. It works with the geometry in the site and
21 the layout we have. They will be the same design as the
22 houses that we're proposing, and it works quite well. And
23 we're pleased that will allow us to get a few more houses
24 up here that actually front on Clement Street that will
25 give that street a nice traditional feel.
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
4 (Pages 13 to 16)
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 9
1 want to talk a little bit about the boards and commissions
2 and their review of this project, and then I would like to
3 take you on a trip around the site what we have done is
4 take some before and after pictures, and hopefully you can
5 follow along with me.
6 The pictures have been out for the audience's
7 review. I will now tell you that the resolution on the
8 camera is not the greatest, but hopefully we can get
9 through that. And finally I would just like to address the
10 project site plan, and any questions that you might have.
11 So we have a project that is -- right now our project looks
12 at 122 single family detached units, 30 duplex units, and
13 has a 2 acre Waterfront Park.
14 Now we will look at some the objectives that we use
15 and the city direction that was provided by your staff to
16 make this project a good one, and to meet the criteria to
17 move this project forward.
18 The Clement Street extension has been accomplished.
19 Extension of the city grid and accessibility to the
20 Waterfront, provision of right -of -way provides for
21 alternative transit modes in the future. We have
22 established the Waterfront park and open -face pedestrian
23 links to the Waterfront, and sidewalks, bike ways along
24 Clement Street, and all of the public streets within this
25 project, articulation of the residential street scape.
Page 10
1 Dealing with the issue of front loaded garages,
2 over half of the units -- more than of half of the units in
3 this project have garages that are either at the back of
4 the site or are accessed from the rear of this site. There
5 are no driveways that access Buena Vista Avenue. There are
6 front yards and side yards and no driveways. The inclusion
7 area and work force housing that I will talk more about as
8 we move forward. And the school district, we recorded an
9 agreement with the school district.
10 We spent a number of months negotiating
11 Superintendent Chicones. He recognized that a new school
12 was not demanded by this project, but he certainly was a
13 tough negotiator, and got a very good agreement for the
14 Alameda Unified School District that can be put towards
15 building facilities in the future. Have a look at some of
16 the issues on the Northern Waterfront that are being
17 brought forward and that are the basis of the staff
18 outlined land use consistency with the existing land uses
19 and residential uses in the neighborhood.
20 We have strived to attain that through both design
21 and density enhancement of the neighborhood. We think
22 that's self explanatory. The removal of the industrial
23 uses at the site, access to the Waterfront. We have public
24 streets that go right down to the Waterfront and Waterfront
25 park. Transportation, as I said before, Clement street
Page 11
1 extension has been accommodated. Alternative transit modes
2 -- we will be involved with the City in transit marketing
3 for this project. We will hopefully put together a
4 marketing program that is both related to this project, but
5 that the city can use, and future projects as they come on
6 line to assist with getting people out of their cars and
7 using other modes of transportation.
8 Telecommuting -- our homes will be wired to
9 accommodate telecommuting. On- island employment -- the
10 opportunity of the jobs and housing balance here, we think
11 that there will be a good number of folks that will be able
12 to live and work on the island that will enjoy our
13 community.
14 Infrastructure issues -- this has a positive impact
15 on both the sanitary and storm sewer systems in the area.
16 Parks and open space -- we have the Waterfront Park and the
17 amenities and the schools recorded agreement with the
18 Unified School District. There are obviously a lot of
19 benefits that come along with a project of this magnitude,
20 and I did not want to take 15 minutes talking about them
21 all. But these are some of the ones that I think stick
22 out, and really will help make a first positive step in the
23 redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront, the elimination
24 of blight, old industrial uses, and conditions on the
25 Waterfront.
Page 12
1 Folks can't even access this Waterfront now. We
2 open the access, we clean it up, we get rid of the tanks.
3 And dealing with truck traffic we think over the long run
4 truck traffic will slowly diminish, and will diminish
5 fairly significantly over time eliminating a number of
6 industrial uses where you won't have any truck traffic.
7 The fiscal and economic impacts we talked about,
8 the Amendments to the BWIP. Here is some of the other
9 positive impacts: $450,000 in tax increments to your
10 agency, $90,000 housing set aside, $135,000 to the general
11 fund. That's over the period and life of the project.
12 This does not include about $300,000 or so in transfer tax
13 that will be coming to the City as these homes are sold.
14 We have C- funding for BWIP for other activities on
15 Webster Avenue, on Park Street, and on the Northern
16 Waterfront. This project would be maintained by the
17 lighting and landscape district. I think this is important
18 because we have benefits that accrue to all of the City,
19 but the maintenance of those facilities: the roads, the
20 streets, the sidewalks, the park will be paid for by the
21 residents of this community.
22 The Planning Board considered this project about a
23 month ago, a little more than a month ago. From my
24 perspective they had very positive things to say about the
25 project. The project design, the orientation to the
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
Page 5
1
ID on the agenda.
2 The state law under which we are acting is the
3 Community Development Law of the State of California. That
4 law requires that we follow certain procedures, some of
5 them formal, in the conduct of the portion of tonight's
6 public hearings which pertains to the Amendment to the
7 Community Improvement Plan for the BWIP. A transcript will
8 be made of the hearing. Now several items will be entered
9 into the record by Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager for
10 the City. Bruce.
11 MR. KNOPF: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Chair,
12 members of the City Council and Community Improvement
13 Commission, I have delivered to the Clerk, and I would like
14 to confirm with her that she has in her possession and will
15 enter into the record of the hearing, the following
16 documents:
17 Exhibit 1 -- an Affidavit of publication of notice
18 of joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment,
19 published once a week for three successive weeks as
20 required by Sections 33452 and 33458 of the California
21 Health and Safety Code.
22 Exhibit 2 -- a Certificate of mailing notice of
23 joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment of the
24 Business Waterfront Improvement Project to each assessee of
25 land in the existing Project Area, as shown on the last
Page 6
1 equalized assessment roll.
2 Exhibit 3 -- a Certificate of mailing notice of
3 joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment to each
4 residential and business occupant of the Project Area.
5 Exhibit 4 — a Certificate of mailing notice of
6 joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment to the
7 governing body of each taxing entity which receives taxes
8 from property in the Project Area.
9 Exhibit 5 -- Certification of Certain Official
10 Actions been taken by Council, the Planning Board and the
11 Community Improvement Commission in connection with the
12 proposed Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for
13 the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project.
14 Exhibit 6 -- Report to the City Council on the
15 proposed Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for
16 the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, adopted
17 August 1, 2000, by Community Improvement Commission
18 Resolution #00 -92 and received August 1, 2000, by City
19 Council Resolution #13256.
20 Exhibit 7 -- the Marina Cove Mitigated Negative
21 Declaration.
22 Exhibit 8 -- the proposed Business and Waterfront
23 Improvement Project Amendment to the Community Improvement
24 Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project.
25 Exhibit 9 -- Recommendation from the Economic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 7
Development Commission recommending Approval of the
Amendment of the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project and the Amendment of the General Plan from General
Industry to Medium Density Residential for the Proposed
Marina Cove Project, and the fiscal analysis of the
proposed Marina Cove Development prepared for the EDC and
the Community Improvement Commission by Strategic Economics
June 2000.
THE CLERK: I have received all of these
exhibits.
MAYOR APPFZZATO: These documents will be
made a part of the record. If there are any written
comments received on the Amendment, they will be placed
into the record at this time.
MR. KNOPF: Mr. Mayor, there have been no
written objections from property owners and/or taxing
entities regarding the proposed amendment to the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Then we will proceed with
the presentation from the applicant, and then I will take
public comment on the proposed actions before us.
Mr. Panek.
MR. PANEK: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of
the Council. My name is Ray Panek, Kaufman and Broad South
Bay 2201 Walnut Avenue, Suite 150 Fremont, California. I'm
Page 8
1 the Director of Forward Planning. With me this evening
2 from Kaufman and Broad South Bay is Robert Freid, he is our
3 president, Craig Hodges, Senior VP of Planning and
4 Acquisitions, and John Coleman our Director of Government
5 Relations.
6 It is certainly a pleasure to be with you, and to
7 appear before you this evening to present this project. It
8 is an exciting one for our company, and we think one that
9 is exciting for the Community of Alameda. Before I start I
10 want to thank the City Staff for their help, the Public
11 Works Department, the Planning Department, and the City
12 Attorney's office. We have been working on this project
13 for a long time, and it has come a long way, and it a very
14 good project that I will be able to present to you this
15 evening. And for their help I'm very appreciative.
16 I have a high -tech slide presentation, which is not
17 my norm. So we will see how this goes. Scott Davidson
18 will help me. You have a hard copy, and we will start.
19 What I would like to do this evening is talk about some of
20 the parameters both that we used for this site in planning
21 the site as well as some the parameters in the Northern
22 Waterfront area that affected how we plan this site.
23 I would then like to talk a little bit about some
24 of the benefits. There are some very positive benefits
25 that this project will bring to the City of Alameda. I
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
2
3
4
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Page t
5
6
7
8
9 REGARDING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
THE KAUFMAN AND BROAD PROJECT
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TRANSCRIPT OF TAPED PROCEEDINGS
CLARK REPORTING
2161 SHATTUCK, SUITE 201
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704
(510)486 -0700
Page 2
1 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd
2 like to call a special joint meeting between the City
3 Council and the Community Improvement Commission to order.
4 I'd like to ask Councilmember Beverly Johnson to lead us in
5 the Pledge of Allegiance.
6 (Pledge of Allegiance)
7 I'd like to ask the Reverend Myong Bae Choi of
8 Alameda Korean Presbyterian Church to lead us in the
9 invocation.
10 (Reverend Myong Bae Choi led invocation.)
11 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you, Reverend Choi.
12 Role call, please.
13 THE CLERK: Daysog?
14 VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Present.
15 THE CLERK: DeWitt? (Mr. DeWitt arrived at
16 7:40 p.m.) Johnson?
17 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Present.
18 THE CLERK: Kerr?
19 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: Present.
20 THE CLERK: Mayor and Chair Appezzato?
21 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Here.
22 Do we have a motion on the minutes, please?
23 COUNCILMEMBER KERR: I move approval of the
24 minutes.
25 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Second.
Page 3
1 MAYOR APPEZZATO: I have a motion and a
2 second. Any further the discussion? Motion passes
3 unanimously. Let's go to the agenda items.
4 THE CLERK: We have a Joint City Council and
5 Community Improvement Commission Public Hearing to consider
6 adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a General
7 Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Community
8 Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront
9 Improvement District to change the land use designation
10 from General Industry to Medium Density Residential, and to
11 incorporate text amendments that reflect the recent
12 elimination of port priority designation for this site, a
13 Rezoning from M -2 to R-4 -PD for a proposed development
14 consisting of 127 detached homes and 24 attached homes on
15 151 lots, for a total of 151 homes and related utilities,
16 streets, open space, and visitor parking on 20.52 acres.
17 The site is located north of Buena Vista Avenue between
18 Entrance Road and Hibbard Street and currently contains an
19 industrial building formally occupied by Weyerhaeuser, the
20 Chipman Moving Warehouse and food storage tanks along the
21 edge of the Estuary. The subject property is 23.82 acres,
22 so there will be a 3.3 remainder parcel following a former
23 rail corridor north of the Del Monte Warehouse along
24 Buena Vista Avenue between Entrance Road and
25 Sherman Street. Applicant: Kaufman and Broad.
Page 4
1 We also have a recommendation from the Economic
2 Development Commission regarding approval of the Amendment
3 of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the
4 Amendment of the General Plan from General Industry to
5 Medium Density Residential for the Proposed Marina Cove
6 Project.
7 In addition, we have a Supplemental Report from the
8 Planning Board providing draft legislation for Mitigated
9 Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Rezoning.
10 We also have related Legislation 1(a) through 1(e).
11 MAYOR APPEZZATO: As the public can see from
12 the agenda, this hearing and our deliberation tonight will
13 consider a number of actions related to the proposed Marina
14 Cove Residential Development. Tonight we will not be
15 discussing anything related to potential design of the
16 proposed development. Should the City Council approve the
17 proposed General Plan, and Redevelopment Plan Amendments,
18 and rezoning there would be subsequent hearings related to
19 the proposed Tentative Map, planned Development, and Design
20 Review applications. Specific issues related to project
21 design would be addressed through these subsequent
22 applications.
23 However, one of the issues before us tonight for
24 action includes a proposed Amendment to the Business and
25 Waterfront Improvement Project also known as the BWIP, Item
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
1
2
3
4
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ALAMEDA CITY HALL
SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Page I
5
6
7
8
9 REGARDING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
THE KAUFMAN AND BROAD PROJECT
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TRANSCRIPT OF TAPED PROCEEDINGS
CLARK REPORTING
2161 SHATTUCK, SUITE 201
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704
(510) 486 -0700
Page 2
1 MAYOR APPEZZATO: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd
2 like to call a special joint meeting between the City
3 Council and the Community Improvement Commission to order.
4 I'd like to ask Councilmember Beverly Johnson to lead us in
5 the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
I'd like to ask the Reverend Myong Bae Choi of
Alameda Korean Presbyterian Church to lead us in the
invocation.
(Reverend Myong Bae Choi led invocation.)
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Thank you, Reverend Choi.
Role call, please.
THE CLERK: Daysog?
VICE MAYOR DAYSOG: Present.
THE CLERK: DeWitt? (Mr. DeWitt arrived at
7:40 p.m.) Johnson?
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Present.
THE CLERK: Kerr?
COUNCILMEMBER KERR: Present.
THE CLERK: Mayor and Chair Appezzato?
MAYOR APPEZZATO: Here.
Do we have a motion on the minutes, please?
COUNCILMEMBER KERR: I move approval of the
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minutes.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Second.
•
Page 3
1 MAYOR APPEZZATO: I have a motion and a
2 second. Any further the discussion? Motion passes
3 unanimously. Let's go to the agenda items.
4 THE CLERK: We have a Joint City Council and
5 Community Improvement Commission Public Hearing to consider
6 adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a General
7 Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Community
8 Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront
9 Improvement District to change the land use designation
10 from General Industry to Medium Density Residential, and to
11 incorporate text amendments that reflect the recent
12 elimination of port priority designation for this site, a
13 Rezoning from M -2 to R-4 -PD for a proposed development
14 consisting of 127 detached homes and 24 attached homes on
15 151 lots, for a total of 151 homes and related utilities,
16 streets, open space, and visitor parking on 20.52 acres.
17 The site is located north of Buena Vista Avenue between
18 Entrance Road and Hibbard Street and currently contains an
19 industrial building formally occupied by Weyerhaeuser, the
20 Chipman Moving Warehouse and food storage tanks along the
21 edge of the Estuary. The subject property is 23.82 acres,
22 so there will be a 3.3 remainder parcel following a former
23 rail corridor north of the Del Monte Warehouse along
24 Buena Vista Avenue between Entrance Road and
25 Sherman Street. Applicant: Kaufman and Broad.
Page 4
1 We also have a recommendation from the Economic
2 Development Commission regarding approval of the Amendment
3 of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the
4 Amendment of the General Plan from General Industry to
5 Medium Density Residential for the Proposed Marina Cove
6 Project.
7 In addition, we have a Supplemental Report from the
8 Planning Board providing draft legislation for Mitigated
9 Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Rezoning.
10 We also have related Legislation 1(a) through 1(e).
11 MAYOR APPEZZATO: As the public can see from
12 the agenda, this hearing and our deliberation tonight will
13 consider a number of actions related to the proposed Marina
14 Cove Residential Development. Tonight we will not be
15 discussing anything related to potential design of the
16 proposed development. Should the City Council approve the
17 proposed General Plan, and Redevelopment Plan Amendments,
18 and rezoning there would be subsequent hearings related to
19 the proposed Tentative Map, planned Development, and Design
20 Review applications. Specific issues related to project
21 design would be addressed through these subsequent
22 applications.
23 However, one of the issues before us tonight for
24 action includes a proposed Amendment to the Business and
25 Waterfront Improvement Project also known as the BWIP, Item
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00
CLARK REPORTING (510) 486 -0700
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 101
Ordinance -- Amending Ordinance No. 2559, as Amended by
Ordinance No. 2681 and 2835, and Approving and Adopting the
Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project to Change the
Land Use Designation from General Industry to Medium
Density Residential.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHSNON: Second.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: We have a motion and a
second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Motion
passes unanimously.
COUNCILMEMBER DEWITT: Introduction of
Ordinance Rezoning, R -99 -1, Reclassifying and Rezoning
Property located between Entrance Road and Hibbard Street
North of Buena Vista from M -2, (General
Industrial/Manufacturing Zoning District), to R -4 -PD
(Neighborhood Residential with a Planning Development
Combining Zoning District.) This is for City Council
action.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON: Second.
MAYOR APPEZZATO: We have a motion and a
second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Motion
passes 4 -1. (Councilmember Kerr -- no)
(Meeting adjourned 10:30 p.m.)
Page 102
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
2 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA )
3
4 I, ELIZABETH A. WILLIS, a Certified Shorthand
5 Reporter 12155, do hereby certify:
6
7 That the foregoing proceeding was taken before me
8 at the time and place therein named; and
9 That the same was taken in shorthand by myself,
10 and was thereafter transcribed into typewritten
11 transcription.
12 I further certify that I am a disinterested person
13 to said action and in no way interested in the outcome
14 thereof nor connected or related to any of the parties
15 thereto.
16
17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
18 affix my official seal of office this 15th day of
19 September, 2000.
20
21
22
23 ELIZABETH A. WILLIS
24 CLARK REPORTING
25
1
26 (Pages 101 to 102)
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9 -5 -00