It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s…another plane

The Alameda Journal today has reported on the information that David K. mentioned in an earlier post that the East Bay Express had covered previously.   Of course, I wouldn’t go as far as calling the EBX “unbiased,” I mean: really now.  As with all media they write from a certain point of view and while they may attempt to “cover both sides” that doesn’t necessarily mean that they come from a place without bias.  Here is the thing I have noticed about most articles (not all) in the EBX.  It generally involves the reporter coming up with a direction the story should take and reporting around it, instead of letting the information guide the story.  Now I’m not saying that it is good or bad, it just is what it is.  Why else would the EBX story concentrate so much on Ron Cowan, yet make no attempts to interview him except through a token attempt to contact his attorney.   I guess I would have been compelled the first time around the EBX article had it actually attempted to contact the people who could give quality information about the subject matter, but instead it felt like a knee jerk response to flog EBX Alameda whipping boy/girl: Ron Cowan and Beverly Johnson…I’m sure if they could have pulled Don Perata in it somehow they would.   But I digress.  

Anyway, I haven’t had a chance to read the full lawsuit, but I have to say that the Journal did a much better job at clairfying what the suit is about.   Although  I have to say that the self-charactization of the suit being “friendly” is quite a laugh.  Since when has recieving additional legal paperwork ever been seen as something “friendly.”   “Friendly” would have been sitting down with the City of Alameda to hash out terms of agreement that everyone could live by, “unfriendly” would be to file a lawsuit in order to build housing in a place where housing probably shouldn’t go and then try to dance around the inclusionary housing requirements.  Highlights:

The developer, Harbor Bay Isle Associates, has filed a lawsuit against the city to get the project approved under an agreement the developer and the city signed 18 years ago.

Without that clarification, the city could extract new demands, such as a requirement that the developer build affordable housing as part of the new project, according to the lawsuit.

“Our position is the existing development agreement is in full force and effect,” said Tim Hoppen, the chief operating officer of Harbor Bay Isle Associates.

Hoppen added that the lawsuit was a “friendly” one and that it was intended to clarify language in the development agreement.

That contract, reached between the city and the developer in 1989, stipulates that Harbor Bay Isle is entitled to build 3,200 units as part of the Harbor Bay Isle development on Bay Farm Island. The developer has so far built only 2,973 of those units.

The new homes, known collectively as “Village VI,” are proposed on land now zoned for light industrial, warehouse and other commercial uses off North Loop Road next to the Chinese Christian Schools.

Mayor Beverly Johnson said it was her belief that the residential units on land now designated for other uses would necessitate a new contract between the developer and the city.

…

Last spring, an environmental impact report for the project was issued, and it said that the nearby Oakland International Airport would subject the new homes to unavoidable airplane noise.

Secondary noise sources, according to the report, include traffic on North Loop Road and Catalina Avenue and construction across North Loop Road.

During a public meeting held in April, about a dozen residents spoke out against the plan. The opposition includes the owners of the nearby Peet’s Coffee & Tea roaster which opened recently at the business park.

…

The opposition to the project includes the Citizens’ League for Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS), which argued that the development, if approved, would undermine a 2001 settlement agreement intended to keep airplane noise in the area to a minimum.

The argument from Harbor Bay Isle Associates (HBIA) seems pretty weak, because they failed to built the number of homes they were entitled to on the appropriately zoned land, does not then entitle them to build on land zoned for other uses.   Particulary if that parcel is subject to unavoidable plane noise that no amount of double paned glass windows can disguise. 

The argument is further weakened by the contention that if this set of homes is allowed to go up that they are somehow exempt from building the required units of affordable/inclusionary housing.   Perhaps this is one development project that will unit folks from various “sides” in Alameda against.    It’s just one of those things that just makes you shake your head in wonder.