2005-04-05 5-B SubmittalArc Ecology
4634 Third St ♦ San Francisco, California 94124
phone: 415 643 -1190 ♦ fax: 415 643 -1149♦ e -mail: evebach @mindspring.com
April 5, 2005
Mayor Johnson
Members of the City Council
Alameda, California
RE: Appeal of Planning Board approvals of DR04 -0113, PD04 -0004 for 433 Buena Vista
Avenue
In addition to issues raised by Lorraine Lilley in her appeal of Planning Board approvals, the
Council should reverse the actions of the Planning Board for the following reasons:
Inaccurate Findings proposed in the Staff Report for 2/28/2005
Finding A -2 states, "the proposed community center and detached garages are accessory
uses to the primary residential use. The proposed community center and detached garages
do not represent a change or expansion in use of the site. The recreational uses and
administrative functions proposed in the community center are uses that already exist and
will be relocated on the site. The uses will be exclusively by the residents of Harbor
Island Apartments and their guests." [page 8]
It is inaccurate to describe the new building that contains two second -stor rooms as a
community center. More than half of the new floor area will be used as an office.
If the office functions that are currently housed in two residential units are transferred to the new
office building, what will be the new use of the two apartments? If they continue to be used as
offices, there will be a substantial increase in office use. If the apartments are returned to
residential use, there will be an additional two units on the property in conflict with Measure A.
A project that has displaced hundred of lower income residents should not be allowed to breach
Measure A.
Finding A -3 states the project is consistent with the General Plan.
In the absence of documentation of the content of the original Planned Development permit and
the Development Plan for this housing complex, staff has assumed that existing uses reflect the
requirements of those permits. Given the absence of information about the original PD permit
and the staff assumptions (see report for first study session), we must conclude that the PD
permit dedicates two apartments to office use. If two residential units are added to the complex,
the Project would be inconsistent with the General Plan.
Finding A -4 states, "the Project will not have a significant effect on adjacent land uses
because it will be located on a developed site, and would not result in a significant
increase in traffic, pedestrian volume, or parking demand. Furthermore, there will be no
adverse effects on aesthetics, open space, noise, and circulation."
This finding does not address the impact of building a line of 2 -story garages (18'3 " ") garages
adjacent to land designated in the General Plan as a linear park. The park will be unusable since
it will be enclosed on one side by the garages and on the other by the walls of the Bayport
project.
Finding A -8 states, "The site is physically suited for the proposed density because the
proposed community center will be providing services to residents who are already on the
site."
There were almost no residents on the site as of the date of the finding (February 28, 2005) or the
date of the application (November 12, 2004) or the date the application was deemed complete
(December 10, 2004). A mostly unoccupied complex is the baseline condition of this project.
The Project pre -empts the West End neighborhood planning process.
Condition 22, that states that "the applicants shall coordinate with the City during the
implementation of the West Alameda neighborhood Improvement Plan and related
improvements when the Plan is adopted and implemented by the City" is a meaningless
statement. A permit is not subject to revision by plans adopted after approval of the permit. The
word "coordinate" has no meaning in this context.
The Project does not respond to Planning Commission concerns about lack of connection to
Appezzato Parkway.
The project is isolated from the street, including bus connections. Revised drawings show
possible pedestrian access adjacent to a garbage receptacle.
The Council should either uphold the appeal or remand it back to the Planning
Commission for corrections.
Yours truly,
/ 9 /7
Eve Bach
Staff Economist/Planner