pages: PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-10-09 | 12 | position was that 15 years was a long time to be held in limbo, but with respect to the General Plan Amendment, the Housing Element did recognize that fact and amended the General Plan (MU-5), which purported to allow housing all the way to the waterfront. They did not request a General Plan Amendment, but that was staff's position. They requested that the land be zoned in accordance with the General Plan. He inquired whether the City intended to put a park on the site or not. He noted that their position to the court was that the City must rezone their property in accordance with the law. Mr. Robert McGillis, project architect, Philip Banta Associates, 6050 Hollis Street, Emeryville, wished to clarify some items with respect to the documents distributed to the Planning Board. He noted that the page after the aerial photograph of the site identified the MU-5 area, and noted that the green swath through the site was the park. He noted that the General Plan was amended in 2003 to accommodate the new Housing Element, and a map for Site 20 was not included in the staff report. He noted that the staff report did not include the fact that the 242 was the result of the density bonus being invoked in this case, and was the sum of the base units plus the density bonus. He noted the entire site was zoned M-2, not open space. He noted that the net density calculation was separate from Measure A. He noted that the issue of toxic material was being handled, and that the DTSC was very strict with their criteria. President Lynch believed the Housing Element was intended to consider changing sites designated for housing to zoning that allows for zoning, versus a "must change." In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand, Mr. Thomas noted that the project was split into two halves, and staff wanted the Planning Board and City Council to take action on the first half until the General Plan and zoning issues were resolved. He explained the details of the zoning designations as defined by the General Plan, as well as the intent of the Housing Element with respect to this matter. Staff disagreed with the applicants' assertion that the Housing Element shows housing all the way out to the waterfront. He noted that during the adoption of the Housing Element, it was never the intent to imply that by showing where the MU-5 was on the map that all the open space policies would vanish. President Lynch noted the time was 10:59 and entertained a motion from the Board to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. M/S Kohlstrand/Ezzy Ashcraft to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. AYES - 6; NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. Thomas described the City's zoning history with this project. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the applicant had submitted applications to do anything on the property during this 15-year period, Mr. Thomas replied that he believed the City had issued at least one use permit to do expansion of existing industrial uses on the site. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 October 9, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-10-09.pdf |