[Fwd: Sierra Club Comments on Alameda Point EIR]

[Tony Chenhansa <tonyc@cpeo.org>]

The following message originated from Bill Smith (WJASmith@aol.com)
Please send responses & comments directly to Bill.

Thanks

TC


From: WJASmith@aol.com

To Alameda Point Environmental and Housing Activists:

Below is the text of the comments on the Alameda Point EIR I submitted
on 
behalf of the Sierra Club.  Comments are due to 2263 Santa Clara Avenue
by 
COB Tuesday, July 6th.  With over 100 people showing up for the planning 
board meeting last week, and commenting constructively, we are really 
beginning to make an impact in the community.  Many thanks to Renewed
Hope 
and the ministers for the superb leadership they are displaying on this
issue.

Bill Smith


=============================================================

On Sierra Club Bay Chapter Letterhead



July 5, 1999

City of Alameda
Ms. Cynthia Eliason
Planning Department
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 120
Alameda, CA  94501



Ms. Eliason:

Re:  Sierra Club Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the 
Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda / Fleet and Industrial Supply Center 
Alameda Annex and Facility


I am writing on behalf of the Sierra Club, which has over 600 members
who 
live in the City of Alameda and several thousand who live in northern
Alameda 
County.

1. The EIR generally failed to address regional impacts of the proposed 
alternatives.  Regarding traffic and circulation, what are the relative 
impacts of traffic and air toxics generated by commuters to the number
of 
jobs in Alameda proposed by the plan in the EIR versus the same number
of 
jobs located elsewhere in the Bay area, especially in the fast growing 
tri-valley area?  Would traffic and air quality impacts be less in
Alameda 
where mass transit alternatives are available or could more easily be
made 
available, and where single occupancy vehicles will be discouraged by
the 
lack of capacity for estuary crossings?  What would be the traffic and
air 
impacts of different types of housing at Alameda Point, especially those
of 
moderately priced workforce housing versus more expensive single family 
detached homes?  Is it likely that occupants of moderately priced
workforce 
housing are likely to live closer to work and take mass transit than 
occupants of more expensive single family detached homes?

2. The EIR failed to address some impacts of local governmental
restrictions, 
especially the City Charter which prohibits the construction of
multi-family 
housing (Measure A) and restrictions related to Alameda Point’s status
as a 
redevelopment area.  How does Measure A limit planning flexibility, 
especially the option of incorporating multi-unit housing into a
development 
to preserve more open space for a given residential density?  How does 
Measure A affect the residential density needed to support high levels
of 
transit service, especially bus?  What affect will Measure A have on
rents at 
Alameda Point and the surrounding area?  On home prices?  On
demographics?  
Why wasn’t an alternative whereby the general plan was amended to allow 
multi-family housing considered?  What are the consequences to rents,
home 
prices and social equity of tearing down existing multi-family housing
and 
replacing that housing with single family housing?  According to the
“Citizen 
Guide to Redevelopment in California,” published by the California 
Redevelopment Association, a redevelopment agency shall “provide an
equal 
number of replacement dwelling units for low- and moderate-income
dwelling 
units destroyed or removed from the project area by the agency.”  How
many 
low- and moderate-income dwelling units are found at Alameda Point and
how 
will they be maintained, renovated, or replaced? 

 3. The EIR also failed to address some local air toxics issues.  What
will 
be the levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons 
(especially benzo-(a)-pyrene), dioxins, furans, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen 
oxides, and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in the Webster Street
tubes 
and near congested intersections?  

4. The alternative analyzed in the EIR relied almost solely on
conventional 
traffic patterns and mitigations for addressing significant impacts due
to 
traffic.  This resulted in the planners proposing to limit build out as
a 
primary mitigation.  Request that the planners analyze an alternative
that 
includes increased incentives for mass transit use, and higher densities
at 
mass transit nodes (both residential and commercial).  This alternative
could 
answer the following questions.  How much would a “transit first” policy 
whereby local governments would structure fees and tax breaks in the 
redevelopment area to reward mass transit use and reduce common
subsidies to 
drivers of single occupancy vehicles (e.g. free parking) increase the
maximum 
allowed buildout relative to the preferred alternative?  How much would
a 
“hire locally” policy whereby local governments would structure fees and
tax 
breaks in the redevelopment area to reward businesses who hired locally 
increase the maximum allowed buildout?

5. The EIR overlooked many of the environmental impacts of demolition
and 
disposal of older buildings.  By how much would renovating, as opposed
to 
demolishing, reusable structures, such as East Housing, reduce both
truck 
traffic through the Cities neighborhoods (especially residential) and 
landfill disposal volume?

For more detailed discussion and queries on each of the above topics
refer to 
the speakers notes provided to the Planning Commission by the Sierra
Club at 
the public hearing on the EIR on June 28th.  

Until the above queries are answered, the conclusions presented in the 
abstract must be tentative and subject to revision.  In particular,
higher 
residential densities at Alameda are a potential mitigation for regional 
traffic and land use problems.  If the preferred alternative is adopted,
this 
possible mitigation for regional problems will be foreclosed.  Thus, in 
addition to significant and not mitigable cumulative impacts associated
with 
cultural resources and air quality as noted in the abstract, there would
also 
be significant and not mitigable cumulative impacts associated with
single 
occupancy vehicle (SOV) traffic patterns subsidized by the preferred 
alternative and land uses that favor the SOVs over mass transit.  

The Sierra Club believes that careful consideration of possible answers
to 
the above questions are vital if the City of Alameda is to turn its
problem 
with limited access to Alameda Point into an asset.  



Sincerely, 

Original Signed July 5, 1999

William J. Smith
Vice-Chair
Sierra Club Northern Alameda County


cc:	Jean Nader, Renewed Hope
	Dana KokuBun, Golden Gate Audubon Society
	Mike Daly, Sierra Club Transportation Planner
	David Nesmith, Sierra Club Conservation Director
	Aaron Priven, Chair Sierra Club Transportation Committee
	Toni Loveland, Chair, Sierra Club Northern Alameda County Group