pages: PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-05-08 | 5 | spoke with two experienced Realtors in Alameda about this issue. She was told that in general, locating a nonresidential use in a residential area could lower property values, but it depended on the type of use and the neighborhood. Each Realtor cited examples of many medical uses located on Santa Clara Avenue, and that property values in those areas were very strong. She believed that maintenance of the property was more important that the location of the use. She complimented the body of work created by the project architect, and believed it would be performed to a high standard. She noted that patients would not patronize a medical use that was not well maintained. Member McNamara noted that it was important to respect the current homeowners and residents in this neighborhood, and that they had a major intersection to deal with. Member Kohlstrand noted that she, along with Member Mariani, had expressed concerns about introducing a commercial or office use on this particular block. She noted that she drove along Santa Clara, Central and Lincoln earlier in the day, and was concerned about additional traffic in this area. She had always advocated for mixed use, but did not believe this was an appropriate site for this use. Vice President Cook did not generally have a problem with mixed use, and added that she lived in an R-4 zone. She expressed concern about traffic in and out of the site, and suggested that locating this use in a neighborhood with wider streets and less existing noise and congestion; for that reason, she opposed this project. Member Lynch commended Ms. Pudell on her staff report, which followed the law, had thorough analysis, and accurate and correct citations. He suggested that critics of the staff report look more deeply into planning law and what the role of the planners are. He stated that planners did not support or not support a particular project, but to follow a specific format and to apply the law correctly. President Cunningham wished to identify what an R-5 zone allowed, and noted that it was the Board's job to hear the public's concerns. He did not hear support from the neighbors for this project. Member Lynch noted that this use had been contemplated by previous Boards and City Council, which was why it was in the City Codes and planning documents. He noted that in this regard, the neighbors asserted the sense of the neighborhood that did not square with the planning documents. Vice President Cook complimented Ms. Pudell on the staff report, and added that she was not in favor of this project. Ms. Jennings noted that she understood the neighbors' and Board members' concerns; she noted that the General Plan identified the R-5 as not being strictly residential. She noted that a variety of permitted uses within the R-5 zone that could impact residences, such as noise and security. She believed the staff report identified the mitigations for the impacts, and added that the property had been vacant since December 15, 2005. She noted that there had Planning Board Minutes Page 5 May 8, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-05-08.pdf |