The sixth senseless
Tonight, at the Planning Board meeting, the PB will be the first to hear about the Harbor Village VIaka the latest Ron Cowan project plans. For those that have been following both stories in the Alameda Sun and Journal, and previous articles from the East Bay Express and Alameda Journal, you will know that this is the proposal that requests a change in zoning from commercial/industrial to residential in order to build 104 new homes on Bay Farm Island. According to the staff report, city staff have outlined four major reasons why the proposal should be denied:
- The noise environment on the site is not suitable for residential development.
- The City should maintain a consistent and clear policy regarding the need and importance of an adequate buffer between Alameda neighborhoods and the Oakland Airport.
- The City should maintain and preserve the integrity of the Harbor Bay Business Park for commercial, job-generating uses.
- The proposal does not provide significant housing, transportation or fiscal benefits to the community.
Although I don’t find some of the smaller arguments supporting the major arguments to be that compelling, namely preserving the land to create a better jobs to housing balance ratio, there is still lots of available commercial space in Alameda and more is in the works to being built. I am glad that the City staff has determined this project unsuitable which will make it pretty difficult for the Planning Board or City Council to grant it approval. Not that I am saying that either entity is predisposed to do so, but, let’s say that there were some political pressure from an outside force that would really like to see this project built, a strong staff report like this one is a great out for those that are more susceptible to those hypothetical outside forces.
The most compelling part of the arguments against the project are the airport noise issue and maintaining a clear understanding with Oakland Airport that Alameda is as serious about mitigating its own exposure to resident airport noise by not putting residential housing willy nilly whereever it feels like it. And of course the concerns of the existing businesses whose operations might be affected by incoming residents who may not like the 24 hour operation and residual issues from a business like Peet’s and/or Donsuemor.
Here’s my crystal ball prediction, the PB will vote against the proposal, the developer will appeal to the City Council. The City Council will have long deliberations on it, but in the end will vote unanimously against the proposal as well. Although if the City Council proves me wrong and decides to go for it, I reiterate the need for a “no-bitching clause” to be included in every closing document for any house that gets purchased in Village VI. This “no-bitching clause” will need to be included in all resale documents as well.
>>> The most compelling part of the arguments against the project are the airport noise issue and maintaining a clear understanding with Oakland Airport that Alameda is as serious about mitigating its own exposure to resident airport noise by not putting residential housing willy nilly whereever it feels like it.
Thank you for saying this!!
Comment by Jack B — May 12, 2008 @ 7:28 am
The entire argument against building these homes is about noise, and the possibility for owner discontentment as a result.
Every single day I drive home from the Peninsula, I pass by a large number of homes that are literally within feet of the Freeway. We’re talking one of the busiest freeways in the US. Just take a drive around the Bay Area. You’ll see houses in every possible setting-including homes in Alameda such as those that are right on top of the Big O tire shop, some of the local all-night bars, and so on. If noise was such a problem… none of the homes I see in these situations would exist to start with. But they do and people are living in them, and seemingly without throwing fits.
The super-simple, “duh” solution is that you price the homes accordingly. This whole argument against building these homes I assume is that Alameda will one again approve some other highly ovepriced Mcmansion development with “below market rate” homes in the 800k range, and so on.
But assumedly, the types of people who consume such houses would find traffic and industrial sounds unappetizing.So the answer isn’t to build upscale housing near an industrial area. Build starter and mid level homes. I assure you- there is a huge demand for more reasonably priced homes. Rest assured- give people who want to start their lives a home they can afford and the industrial noise will be a non-issue.
So in my opinion, the plans for this development is the case of the wrong application for the wrong area. Scrap it and build something more appropriate.
Comment by edvard — May 12, 2008 @ 7:59 am
Edvard,
So little do you know! The citizens of Alameda have very informal and precarious agreements w/ the forces that be at OAK, which could be thrown out the window if these are built…. leading to more air traffic over HB “island” and the main island.
I can assure YOU, Edvard,,, that it is VERY UNHEALTHY for you or anybody else to live w/ that kind of decibel level.
Comment by Jack B — May 12, 2008 @ 8:52 am
Ed,NONE of the homes there will be affordable, this project is exempt from the 25% rule.
However, my concern isn’t for plane induced hearing problems future residents may have,But the underlying messege Alameda would be sending to prospective business that might consider filling our many still vacant and future commercial spaces. After the Cliff Bar fiasco,our competence in attracting and keeping such business is highly questionable.
As well as the points mentioned in #3.
Comment by MarkD — May 12, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Lauren,
As this is a re-zoning, the issue has to go to the city council. There’s no appeal, the council has to decide. The PB is just making a recommendation.
Also, the FEIR has a copy of the “no bitching clause” that new residents would have to sign. However, history teaches us that it doesn’t mean they won’t.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — May 12, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Let’s see… As of even now, if you live in NYC, which by far beats the Bay Area in yuupiedom, the air quality there is the equivalent to smoking 1 pack of cigarettes a day.
The ranking of states with the highest rates of air pollution and subsequent cancer risk are as follows:
1:New York
2:New Jersey
3:California
4:Massachusetts
Any argument made about whom should live where and making efforts to curb growth via pre-existing conditions, of which many already live with is null. If that’s the case, then all of you living here have already made that mistake because you and your children are at a much greater risk for having health problems as a result of pollution than almost the rest of the country. So perhaps we should be telling Californians that they can’t live here because of these ‘threats’ and should be off to Montana.We might as well tell any future New Yorkers that they can’t live there because they’ll ruin their lungs, and so on.
People are highly adaptable. I grew up in the middle of nowhere. There were no lights, no noise, very little pollution, no freeways, etc. Then I loved to Boston where there was a T station outside my window. So every 10 minutes, a 70 ton train would come clanging down the tracks. That and the fact that the city was ablaze with light 24/7. I had a hard time sleeping for about a week, then I was fine with it. In fact, when I go to visit my parents, I have a hard time sleeping because it is too quiet. My point is that those inhabitants would likely become used to the noise just like you all here deal with perhaps 10 times the amount of noise, pollution, and traffic as I did when I was living back home. Perhaps people in TN think that you all here are putting yourselves at grave danger. It all depends on your perspective.
And again- I don’t realistically see Alameda as being anything except a bedroom community. The ‘business’ of Alameda will probably continue to develop into a strictly residential city.
Lastly, what bothers me about this is that current residents are making choices for future residents. That’s kind of arrogant. I do not own a home here and as mentioned- am leaving anyway. But if I were to buy here- By all means, build them and let ME decide if it is to my liking, not neighbors who simply don’t want anyone else moving in on their turf.
Comment by edvard — May 12, 2008 @ 11:19 am
I doubt annyone’s true concern is health. But Ed, things change, people change, places chnage. Even good ol’ Alameda.
Comment by MarkD — May 12, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
I don’t believe this planning board or this city council will let this project go forward.
Just plain common sense tells me that this is a non starter.
Comment by john piziali — May 12, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Mark,
I appreciate seeing you mention that because everything put aside, you’re right. It isn’t really about health, noise, or anything else.
Every single time anything is proposed to get developed in Alameda- especially anything residential- thinly veiled reasons are found as to why it shouldn’t be built.Whether it be about traffic, noise, “the quality of life” or saving Dolphins. Clear it all away and the truth is that people are simply acting like most Americans and perhaps humans act. To simply spit out the truth and say: ” I got here first, and now that I got here, nobody else should be allowed to” sounds much nastier than saying something like: ” Oh-well if they build new houses, there will be 100 more cars and it’ll ruin everything and create more traffic.”
Looking at it from the bigger picture, this is all really about population control. The fact is that the population is going to keep right on growing. Even attempts to stop it here are failing. So what if measures like M-A and Prop 13 inadvertently makes educated professionals throw up their hands and skidaddle to Texas, North Carolina or Georgia… there’s millions more uneducated illegal immigrants flowing in to replace us and then some. Put two and two together… this is what the future looks like for Northern California.
Comment by edvard — May 12, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Another very erudite post from edvard!
Comment by Bob Wilson — May 12, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Okay John – Now I believe you are right about the way PB will vote tonight.
Comment by D Kirwin — May 12, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Hey David they did good, so did staff. Council will do just the same.
This is the first time I have ever seen a meeting on an issue like this where there was not one person who spoke in favor of the applicant.
Comment by john piziali — May 12, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
I wish they had taken the view of “the people” with the theater / parking tower.
I wish they showed concern for the city’s budget when they decided on the Landing deal.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 12, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
I wish DK would stop spreading falsehoods.
Comment by Bob Wilson — May 13, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Yeah well, there’s nothing more American than pulling the latter up from under you. However, that doesn’t mean that other points brought up against this project, including my own, are by default any less valid.
My point stands. My concern isn’t for future resident who might buy there knowing full well what the circumstances are then still complain and make things difficult for the commercial tenants. My concern is for the residents that are already there and have already invested in our community. i.e petes, etc.
Comment by MarkD — May 13, 2008 @ 8:16 am
My concern is: building houses there and the airplanes decide… screw Alameda, what do they care? … and instead of the commercial jets flying out over the bay to gain altitude… take a hard right! and the smaller planes buzz us more than they do already.
Comment by Jack B — May 13, 2008 @ 8:41 am
# 13
I am very impressed by the design and results of the theater/parking complex. A beautiful addition to an area of Alameda that spent 30+ years in never-never land. Thank goodness the view of the “people” won out.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 13, 2008 @ 9:01 am
So a guy who won’t cough up $10/month for a true public purpose is pleased with $1000/household for bread/circus?
Comment by dave — May 13, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Dave, do you have facts for the $1000/household figure? Or are you pulling this out from “you know where” as always?
Comment by Natalie — May 13, 2008 @ 9:39 am
18
Like bread, love circuses, got no cough.
Comment by Jack Richard — May 13, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Natalie:
Project cost: approx $35mil
Number of households in Alameda: approx 31,000
Can you handle the rest yourself?
Comment by dave — May 13, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Last I heard… at a council meeting… it was up to 37mil.
Comment by Jack B — May 13, 2008 @ 1:07 pm