From: Shelby S
To: Allen Tai; City Clerk; Planning; Steven Buckley; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Consent Calendar Item 5D on 01/16/2024 2023-3691 subdivision Map -- WHOA! Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 8:19:04 PM
For City Council consideration-
I see on the Consent Calendar Item: "Adoption of Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Map (Tract 8696) to Subdivide a 160.64-Acre City-Owned Parcel (APN 74-1368-18-4) into 23 Lots, Three Remainder Parcels and Associated Public Rights of Way on Pan Am Way, West Midway Avenue, West Ranger Avenue, West Tower Avenue, Orion Street, and Main Street at Alameda Point.
The streamlining provision of Public Resources Section 21083.3 and Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines apply and no further environmental review is required. (Planning, Building and Transportation 20962700)
---------
The first thing I want to ask is: whats the hurry?
City Councilmembers haven't even seen this before, but it went straight to the Consent Calendar and the Planning Board "yeah yeah yeah'd" their approval, so there has been no review.
Go watch the meeting, I think the item took about 5 minutes.
Second, as a matter of law, Celena Chen might have been kitting or reading a book during the presentation, and the whole time, and the Planning Board had no idea what the law was and relied on staff to answer matters of law instead of Atty Chen.-that's not how it is supposed to work.
If you do watch the meeting, you will see that I (of course) spoke about violations of CEQA but the Planning Board didnt even address it at the so-called public hearing--which was not properly Noticed by the way. You could look at the Notice as well while you're at it.
At that meeting, I objected to the "approval" because they voted on evidence not before them--I even asked for the CEQA documentation during the public comments--its required as you know--even Streamlining needs to have evidence.. There are forms, people! --- forms and checklists, and public disclosures.
None of that has been provided yet, which, as the judicial body, means you can't approve the project without it either--I mean, not if your;e following the law that is.
Third--as I already know, and if you didnt already, might have learned at the last meeting-- no projects in the Historic District are fully-streamline-able, and an agency or a judicial body cannot possibly evaluate evidence that does not exist. Neither can the public, and public review is also required. Oh, that silly little thing called "public participation"-Pshaw! so bothersome!
The parcel map is for 160 acres, dont you think the public deserves more review? This also ain't no mixed-use walkable transit-oriented development as required by ABAG and the associated zoning and land use regulations, so it dont conform with nuthin. And it really
doesn't comply with the MIP and the Alameda Point EIR.
You know the MIP limits new residential development west of Main St to <1200 and total residential units to 1425 right?
--just like the AP EIR and the 2040 General Plan, the Main St Neighborhood Specific Plan, and the Waterfront Precise Plan--and the Zoning Code)
Oh, and if I recall, EBMUD said they can't support residential infrastructure above that amount right?
Oh one more thing--where's the Certificate of Approval? All Projects at Alameda Point must undergo review by the Historical Advisory Board (pssstttt-... it says so in the Zoning Code--gahead, go look!)
So how about we get the CEQA review documentation, let the HAB review it (Come on Allen, put something on their agenda for once will ya?), and give both the public and the council time to look at it....That'd be great.
Thank you.
--
Shelby
510-435-9263