APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (to the City Council)

CPC failed to take action at a properly noticed meeting; it failed to close the public hearing; and it failed to make the findings required for each of the actions it purportedly took.

Major Conditional Use Permit (OPC Sec. 17.134.070) for Pedestrian Bridges (OMC 17.102.200)

-No plans were submitted for the two pedestrian bridges, thus the application was incomplete and none of the findings required in 17.134 could have been made, especially those related to design review.

-No conditions for approving the use permit were ever considered, much less approved, by the Commission to ensure timely construction of the pedestrian bridges and to ensure that their location, design, size, and operating characteristics will be compatible with and will not affect the livability or appropriate development of the surrounding neighborhood.

Major Conditional Use Permit (OPC Sec. 17.134.070) for Shared Parking (OMC 17.116.110b)

-There is no evidence in the record to support any of the findings required in 17.134; drawings were submitted for only two of three parking areas identified in Exhibit B of the PDP application (Site F2 and Site G); nothing on parking was submitted for 66 Franklin (Variant 1b) nor was parking on 66 Franklin discussed in the EIR.

-The EIR shows that project buildout will create an UNMET demand for 1,364 parking spaces (FEIR Table III-3); with this shortfall, the Commission cannot make the determination required in 17.116.110B, that "the typical utilization of the parking area would be staggered to such an extent that the reduced number of spaces would be adequate to serve all such activities." Granting a use permit would be an error and an abuse of discretion.

Major Variance (OPC Sec. 17.148.070) from Special Restrictions Applying to Fast-Food Restaurants (OMC 17.102.210E)

-The Commission did not make the required findings and based on evidence in the record cannot make the findings required in 17.148.050; furthermore the record is unclear as to which section of the zoning regulations the major variance would apply.

-Granting the variance would constitute granting a very special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned properties and with the purposes of the zoning regulations.

-Granting the variance would allow unlimited fast food restaurants on the Amtrak parking lot (Site G), opposite the "We the People" auditorium and nearby residential areas, without any of the trash and litter controls normally required of fast-food restaurants.

Design Review (OPC Sec. 17.136.090)

-The record shows no evidence of design review approvals being granted by the Commission; the record is clear that no design review applications were ever submitted for the pedestrian bridges or for the "Common Areas", so no approvals could possibly have been given for those items.

-The garage designed for Site G meets none of the criteria in 17.136.070 and, therefore, could not possibly have been approved unless the Commission made a significant error, or totally abused its discretion.

-Specific design review issues are detailed in SoNiC's letter of 17 March 2004 to the Commission, attached hereto, in the attachment entitled "Comments from SoNiC on PUD Application (3/17/2004): PDP & FDP issues and recommendations".

Planned Unit Development (OPC Sec. 17.140.070)

-Both the PDP and the FDP applications were incomplete; both included drawings that fail to identify which of the 22 possible "variants" is depicted in that drawing; both omit drawings of some "variants" altogether.

-PDP plans omit pedestrian bridges and all "Common Area" improvements.

-Specific PUD issues are detailed in SoNiC's letter of 17 March 2004 to the Commission, attached hereto, in the attachment entitled "Comments from SoNiC on PUD Application (3/17/2004): PDP & FDP issues and recommendations".

-The Commission did not discuss or consider each of the permit criteria as required in 17.140.080 and therefore could not possibly have approved a PUD application, except possibly in error or abuse of its discretion.

-The "PUD Document" (dated 2-18-2004 but first released for public review on 3-17-2004) says Consumer Laundry and Repair Service is a permitted use, but COA 30f prohibits this use.

-The following uses are conditionally permitted in the C-45 zone but would no longer require conditional use permits pursuant to the "PUD Document" (dated 2-18-2004 but first released for public review on 3-17-2004):

            Fast Food Restaurant

            Mechanical or Electronic Games

            Group Assembly

            Alcoholic Beverage Sales

            General Wholesale Sales

            Automotive Fee Parking

The implications of these changes are enormous, especially on Sites F-2, F-3, and G, which border residential areas at the Landing and in the Mixed-Use and Waterfront Warehouse Districts. No analysis of these proposed changes was provided to the Commission nor were any Conditions of Approval to manage the potential impacts of these proposed changes ever considered by the Commission.

-No zone in Oakland permits Fast Food Restaurant uses, except with a Conditional Use Permit; the special regulations at 17.102.210 have not been included in the Conditions of Approval, nor has recourse for violations under 17.134.100 been provided in the DA; approving the PUD would create a very special privilege totally inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned properties and inconsistent with the General Plan.

Environmental Impact Report Certification (OPC Sec. 17.158.220F)

-The Commission acted with extreme speed to certify the EIR after minimal opportunities for public comment, despite deficiencies in the analysis and other problems brought to the Commission's attention in several letters and public testimony; the Commission failed to address many of the issues raised either adequately or at all.

-Specific EIR issues related to off-street parking are detailed in SoNiC's letter of 17 March 2004 to the Commission, attached hereto, and its attached letters, one from the Law Office of Brian Gaffney dated 3/17/04 re EIR certification, and one from Stephen J. Lowens, P.E. dated 3/11/04 re Mitigation Measure B.4.

-The EIR omitted any analysis at all of providing parking at 66 Franklin ("variant" 1b).

-Additional issues related to off-street parking are discussed in the attached document entitled "Off-Street Parking for the Jack London Square Redevelopment Project".

-EIR issues related to all other deficiencies and failures are discussed in various letters and public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by reference.

Rezoning (OPC Sec. 17.144.070)

-The Commission erred in its consideration of rezoning Site G from M20/S4 to C45/S4 because it failed to consider appropriate measures to address the impacts of Fast Food Restaurants.

Conditions of Approval (OPC Sec. 17.152.160?)

-Numerous COA issues discussed above were not addressed by the Commission. Most egregious is the failure to clarify COA 25 and COA 26

-COA 21 through 24 and 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 34 were never discussed by the Commission and each has problems that need to be resolved before the project can be approved.

Development Agreement (OPC Sec. 17.138.060)

-As noted above, both PDP and FDP plans are inadequate: "variants" depicted in drawings are not identified, and not all "variants" are depicted; no plans have been submitted for pedestrian bridges; plans submitted for "Common Area" improvements have not been reviewed.

-As noted above, parking and traffic impacts on abutting properties and surrounding area have not been adequately addressed.

-The Commission requested vague changes in the design review provisions, but has never seen those changes, much less approved them. This is both an error and an abuse of its discretion.