pages: PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-05-12 | 11 | In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the inclusionary housing ordinance would come into effect, Mr. Thomas replied that normally it would, but not in this case. Board member McNamara noted that the staff report did not reference Island going all the way through, as well as the eight streets feeding onto Catalina. Mr. Thomas replied that the application before the Board was a General Plan Amendment to change the zoning from business to residential, which was analyzed in the EIR. He described the procedures in determining the street layout and flow. In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether he cared to move forward on this application, based on what the public and Planning Board had said during the meeting, Mr. Hoppen replied that he intended to go forward with the application. In response to a question, Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant submitted a fiscal impact study prepared by EPS in 2004. PK Consultants looked at the report, and raised a number of questions, particularly regarding the age of the report. The applicants agreed that the report should be updated. The fundamental difference of opinion between staff and the EPS analysis was the idea that there was no difference in the cost of residential and business use to the General Fund. It was agreed that the residential use would generate higher land values, but they disagreed regarding the cost to service the residential use versus the business use. The report took the position that they were basically the same. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether that assertion was substantiated, Mr. Thomas replied that EPS identified several sources of information, including the Police and Fire Departments. Staff was concerned about the calls that they would receive for Code Enforcement, complaints about businesses, noise and traffic that did not go to the Police Department. He believed this site would generate a lot of calls, and believed that the time and economic resources expended would be significant. President Cook noted that there would be the cost associated with the loss of opportunity from businesses that may not come to Alameda because it was no longer a desirable environment in which to do business. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that while the City certainly needed revenues, residences and businesses, this was not an either/or proposition; she believed there should be diversification in the City. She noted that the commercial/light industrial/manufacturing use in the City was very valuable. She disclosed that she met with some business owners from the North Loop Business Association who had spoken during the public hearing the previous week. She noted that this business park had grown and progressed, which was good for Alameda. She noted that Harbor Bay Isle had held this parcel for 20 years, and had trouble selling it. She noted that there were some business parks where the businesses owned their own spaces, and that it was important to support both business and residential uses in the area. She was concerned about the noise issue, and that the mitigation measures included "inoperable or closed windows, as well as mechanical ventilation systems that will meet the Uniform Building Code requirements." She believed that was a tortured analysis, Page 11 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf |