| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 51 | Anonymous | |
| 52 | janice miles | I has lived in the 2500 block of Eagle for the past 16 years. I am opposed to building a 3-story, 36 unit rental complex. |
| 53 | Anonymous | |
| 54 | Kelly Fang | |
| 55 | Mary Tigh | |
| 56 | Anonymous | This letter says it all. Please reconsider downsizing this expansion!
Thank you. |
| 57 | Thomas Hunt | |
| 58 | Elisabeth Eliassen | The city council is acting in a feckless and irresponsible manner during an economic depression. The city council does not seem to realize that its duty is to make decisions that benefit the citizens of Alameda, opting instead to decide to benefit developers. This seems to me to show utter lack of judgement and fiscal responsibility, indicating that the city council should be recalled. |
| 59 | erik zell | |
| 60 | Andres J. Olveira | 1) Low income housing is essential but Alameda should be progressive enough to insist on mixed-income-level housing. Lessening the chance of creating mini-"projects." The objective should be to introduce low into mid, mid into high, etc. Apartments in two buildings immediately across the street on Eagle and Everett go from as low as $500 per month to a maximum of $850. On the same block, additional low rents are in place. One block away, on Eagle and Broadway, another low rent complex is available. More is inappropriate for this neighborhood; it is expedient for developers.
2) The 2400 block of Eagle and surrounding streets is known for horrendous parking during the day. 36 new units would magnify an already terrible problem.
3) The increase in density is too severe and out of character for the neighborhood. The areas immediately across the street are zoned residential neighborhood; again, out of character.
4) If these units are expected to have a typical level of children, the traffic on the 2400 block of Eagle and 1800 block of Everett is pretty heavy during the day due to the automobile related businesses on the surrounding streets of Park, Buena Vista and Clement, making it pretty dangerous. Additionally, the additional traffic of 36 units would add to that danger for existing children.
5) If this additional density causes a school redistricting of the neighborhood from Edison to Haight, along with additional density, it would negatively affect property values. On top of the current recession this would unfairly single-out local property owners.
6) Many people who live in the area now do much of their grocery shopping at Safeway and Lucky, one to three miles away because the local stores are too expensive. How would this be useful to low-income families?
7) The city's own planning commission just one week ago (late July) had no idea of the pertinent components of this project. They expressed shock to their staff that they didn't know anything about this. How can the City Council approve anything that its own Planninc Commission is surprised about?
8) The benefit of this project seems entirely on the side of developers, not even of those who purportedly would benefit from the housing. Approval of this project would bring into question the competence of any public council or board willing to approve it. If it is the purpose of the city's officers and elected representatives to create activism in the local electorate and a new voting block that will turn its eyes on city representatives with deaf ears, they may succeed better than they would hope with approval of this project. |
| 61 | Steven Gerstle | |
| 62 | Anonymous | |
| 63 | Linda Hanson | Jamming all low income housing into one dense space is a terrible idea. Sort of like a Ghetto!!! |
| 64 | Neal Jarecki | |
| 65 | Neal Jarecki | |
| 66 | Virginia Thomnpson | |
| 67 | Kevin Frederick | Any developer that wants to cram that manly units into such a small lot does not have Alameda in their best interest! Their just making this neighborhood a dumping ground just because they found a way to get away with it. Why are they are so intent on this new direction??? Why are they not keeping with the original plan of building such a project at their original location with in their little gated community development??? This all speak volumes.
My vision would be a little urban rearranging for the Island High school site. There are some nice homes that are surrounded by communal buildings in near by blocks and it would be great to see a neighborhood restored by moving these isolated historic houses to a lot like this thus restoring this neighborhood back to a normal Alameda residential neighborhood.
If only the city had great idea like that ??? That’s an Alamedan idea not developer idea!!! |
| 68 | Anonymous | |
| 69 | Gretchen Finer | |
| 70 | Lon Elledge | |
| 71 | Jenny Curtis | |
| 72 | Gerry Torres | What's the definition of confusion?
A City council that builds an upscale marketplace(Alameda Marketplace); allows the opening of various new trendy restaurants along Park Street; opens a new upscale supermarket (NobHill), then wants to build housing for ~150 individuals that can't afford any of the services around them.
The Inclusionary Housing Initiative is law...follow it and keep inline with your prior decisions for this area. |
| 73 | John Watkins | |
| 74 | Anonymous | |
| 75 | Marianne Carter | Alameda resident for 8 years - in the past two years we are becoming more concerned about what officials are doing related to development. We are considering moving to Morgan Hill - please do not allow this development of 36 units - too large |
| 76 | Patricia M. Gannon | Warmington Homes should honor its commitment to include low income housing in the Grand Marina development. Building 36 apartments on less than one acre clearly violates Measure A and is totally inappropriate for an already crowded area. Please hold Warmington to its prior commitment to build low income homes on the Grand Marina area. |
| 77 | Kelly Olveira | I'm baffled to think that anyone of any intelligence finds this a feasible plan. Has anyone on the planning board or the city council actually come out to visit the proposed site. You would immediately see that such a structure could not possiblyt benefit ANYONE, other than the developers. I strongly oppose this proposal. |
| 78 | Molly Peters | Building such a huge structure in such a small area is really not smart. DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN !!! |
| 79 | Poor People = Crime | Move them to Oakland please. |
| 80 | Anonymous | We certainly have enough low income housing please try somewhere else |
| 81 | Josh Libby | |
| 82 | Josh Libby | |
| 83 | Kurt Libby | |
| 84 | Tony Chung | |
| 85 | Virginia Thompson | |
| 86 | Nick Tzvetkov | |
| 87 | Vali Ebert | Please consider building senior housing on that site. Would maintain some level of density, but with fewer impacts to a site that size. |
| 88 | Elka Ruppert | We don't need anymore low income housing in Alameda. The already low income housing here has ruined the neighborhood. Don't ruin Park Street as well! |
| 89 | Andres Olveira | I live across the street from the old Island High School, and i'm strongly opposed to this. Using this area to dump all the low income housing so other complexes can be nothing but high-income tenants is wrong. A healthy mix of low and high-rent apartments is much more fair to everyone involved. |
| 90 | Sonja Hagen-Zajicek | |
| 91 | James Drew Zajicek | |
| 92 | Antonia DePaiva | Generations of our family were born and raised in Alameda, and I am appalled to see such drastic changes. Obviously, these changes are contributing to the greed of an outsider. Alameda used to be a wonderful, unique, pleasant, charming, safe community. |
| 93 | Tina Koubek | |
| 94 | suzanne cofer | shame on them for trying to cheat. |
| 95 | Anonymous | |
| 96 | Matthew Nguyen | |